AI Implementation Review
LMU/COICP Example
AI Implementation Review Example
Review LMU/COICP AI-assisted engineering work, accepted AI output, rejected AI shortcuts, human verification, risks, and follow-up before integration.
ES-108
AI Review
Human Verification
Example purpose
This artifact records the ES-108 review of AI-assisted implementation work.
The review determines whether AI assistance remained subordinate to engineering judgment and whether AI suggestions that violated LMU/COICP guardrails were rejected.
Project
LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform
Document control
| Field |
Value |
| Artifact owner |
AI reviewer |
| Primary reviewers |
COICP Product Engineer, Architecture Review Board chair, IT security reviewer, Compliance reviewer |
| Status |
Accepted with follow-up |
| Last updated |
2026-07-06 |
| Related Engineering Stage |
ES-108 — Integration |
| Project workspace target |
docs/project-workspace/integration/ai_implementation_review.md |
Integration context
| Field |
Value |
| Integrated baseline |
LMU-COICP-INT-001 |
| Candidate expected after testing |
LMU-COICP-RC-001 |
| Integration decision posture |
Accepted with follow-up |
| Target testing posture |
Internal engineering review candidate only |
| Planned review environment |
LMU-COICP Internal Engineering Review Environment |
| Planned dataset for downstream review |
Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset |
| Planned synthetic records |
421 |
| Planned reviewer accounts |
24 |
| Planned review window |
March 18–22, 2026 |
| AI Incident Summary |
Deferred / disabled |
| Operational pilot |
Not approved |
AI use status
AI was used to draft candidate structures, suggest edge cases, and identify test ideas. AI was not used as final implementation authority, and AI Incident Summary remains deferred/disabled.
AI-assisted areas
| Work Item |
AI Assistance |
Accepted Output |
Review Performed |
Risk |
Status |
| IW-001 |
Suggested entity fields |
Partial |
Compared to data_design.md |
missing evidence fields |
accepted after revision |
| IW-002 |
Suggested evidence validation cases |
Partial |
Reviewed against NFR-001 |
weak auditability |
accepted after revision |
| IW-003 |
Suggested create workflow edge cases |
Yes |
Reviewed against workflow_design.md |
evidence bypass |
accepted after revision |
| IW-004 |
Suggested status transition patterns |
Partial |
Reviewed against workflow design |
invalid states |
follow-up needed |
| IW-005 |
Suggested access tests |
Partial |
IT security review |
incomplete roles |
follow-up needed |
| IW-007 |
Suggested error behavior |
Partial |
Architecture/compliance review |
hidden evidence failure |
follow-up needed |
Rejected AI output
- Suggestion to allow incident creation without an
EvidenceEvent when evidence service is unavailable.
- Suggestion to auto-save AI-generated summary as the official incident summary.
- Suggestion to broaden viewer access for “pilot convenience.”
- Suggestion to treat technical logs as the only reviewable evidence.
- Suggestion to default emergency-related entries into the normal COICP workflow.
- Suggestion to hard-code a retention period without Compliance approval.
AI review findings
| Finding |
Assessment |
| AI was useful for edge-case discovery. |
Accepted |
| AI repeatedly suggested convenience paths that violated evidence, access, AI, emergency, and retention guardrails. |
Material finding |
| Human review successfully rejected guardrail-violating suggestions. |
Accepted |
| AI did not become final implementation authority. |
Accepted |
| AI Incident Summary remains deferred and disabled. |
Accepted |
| Access-control tests still require additional verification. |
Follow-up required |
| Evidence failure behavior still requires focused verification. |
Follow-up required |
| Emergency-boundary behavior still requires focused verification. |
Follow-up required |
Decision
AI-assisted implementation accepted with follow-up.
AI Incident Summary remains deferred/disabled.
Carry-forward actions
| Action |
Owner |
Target Stage |
| Add access-control matrix tests. |
IT security reviewer |
ES-109 |
| Add evidence write failure tests. |
Architecture Review Board chair / Product Engineer |
ES-109 |
| Add invalid status transition tests. |
Product Engineer |
ES-109 |
| Add Campus Safety emergency-boundary test. |
Product Engineer / Campus Safety liaison |
ES-109 |
| Preserve AI Incident Summary deferment until human review workflow is implemented. |
AI reviewer / Product Owner |
ES-109 and later |
| Keep AI-use disclosure in future PRs. |
Product Engineer |
Ongoing |
Continue to Guardrail Review
Check whether evidence, access, AI, emergency-boundary, retention, and direct-update guardrails held.
Open Guardrail Review →