Skip to content

Review Findings

LMU/COICP Example

Review Findings Example

Record LMU/COICP integration review findings, severity, source, owners, resolution, status, accepted risks, and carried-forward issues that become ES-109 test focus.

ES-108 Findings Risk Visibility

Example purpose

This artifact records findings from ES-108 integration review.

Findings make gaps visible. They distinguish between integration blockers, accepted integration risks, follow-up testing needs, and closed issues.

Project

LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform

Document control

Field Value
Artifact owner COICP Product Engineer
Primary reviewers Architecture Review Board chair, IT security reviewer, AI reviewer, Compliance reviewer, Campus Safety liaison
Status Accepted with findings carried forward
Last updated 2026-07-06
Related Engineering Stage ES-108 — Integration
Project workspace target docs/project-workspace/integration/review_findings.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

Findings

ID Finding Severity Source Owner ES-109 Mapping Status
RF-001 Access-control test coverage incomplete. Medium Guardrail review IT security reviewer DEF-002 candidate Open
RF-002 Status transition validation incomplete. Medium Traceability review Product Engineer DEF-001 candidate Open
RF-003 Evidence write failure path requires focused review. High Guardrail review Architecture Review Board chair / Product Engineer DEF-003 candidate Open
RF-004 AI Incident Summary implementation deferred. Low AI review AI reviewer AI verification focus Closed
RF-005 Retention rules unresolved. Medium Architecture/design carry-forward Compliance reviewer Release/governance risk Open
RF-006 Emergency-boundary behavior requires focused test. Medium Guardrail review Product Engineer / Campus Safety liaison DEF-004 candidate Open
RF-007 Build/test command evidence not finalized. Medium Integration verification Product Engineer DEF-005 candidate Open

High-severity finding

RF-003 — Evidence write failure path requires focused review

Why it matters:

If official incident state can change without a corresponding EvidenceEvent, LMU/COICP loses auditability and violates the architecture and design baseline.

Required treatment:

  • add focused evidence write failure test;
  • confirm official state change fails safely if evidence cannot be written;
  • review before release readiness;
  • keep as high-priority ES-109 focus.

Findings accepted as integration risk

Finding Rationale
RF-001 access-control coverage incomplete Accepted only for integration because matrix testing is assigned to ES-109.
RF-002 status transition validation incomplete Accepted only because invalid transitions will be tested in ES-109.
RF-005 retention rules unresolved Accepted because no retention assumptions are hard-coded and no real data is in scope.
RF-006 emergency-boundary behavior incomplete Accepted only because no operational or emergency workflow is being released.
RF-007 build/test command evidence incomplete Accepted only as a documentation/verification gap assigned to ES-109.

Findings carried forward

  • RF-001 → DEF-002 candidate.
  • RF-002 → DEF-001 candidate.
  • RF-003 → DEF-003 candidate.
  • RF-005 → release/governance risk.
  • RF-006 → DEF-004 candidate.
  • RF-007 → DEF-005 candidate.

Review conclusion

The findings do not block conditional integration because they are visible, assigned, and appropriate for ES-109 Testing and Verification.

They would block release or pilot if left unresolved.

Continue to Integration Decision Record

Record the integration decision, rationale, integrated changes, required follow-up, risks accepted, and approval.

Open Integration Decision Record →