User Feedback Log¶
Example purpose¶
This artifact records feedback from LMU internal engineering reviewers during ES-113.
Feedback is operational evidence. It helps determine what the LMU team should fix, clarify, defer, or prioritize in Stewardship.
Project¶
LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform
Document control¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Artifact owner | LMU COICP Product Owner |
| Primary reviewers | Campus Operations lead, Facilities liaison, Residence Life reviewer, Campus Safety liaison, IT security reviewer, Compliance reviewer, AI reviewer, Architecture Review Board chair |
| Status | Accepted with feedback carried forward |
| Last updated | 2026-07-06 |
| Related Engineering Stage | ES-113 — Monitoring and Operations |
| Project workspace target | docs/project-workspace/monitoring/user_feedback_log.md |
Feedback register¶
| Date | Source | Feedback | Category | Severity | Action | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 19 | Campus Operations lead | Intake workflow is understandable after scope briefing. | Usability | Low | Preserve onboarding message. | Product owner | Open |
| Mar 19 | Campus Operations reviewer | Closure rationale field needs examples. | Workflow clarity | Medium | Add field guidance. | Product engineer | Open |
| Mar 20 | Facilities liaison | Handoff owner should show “next responsible office” more clearly. | Handoff UX | Medium | Add UI/design improvement. | Product engineer | Open |
| Mar 20 | Residence Life reviewer | Residence hall scenario worked, but handoff evidence was hard to see. | Evidence visibility | Medium | Improve evidence timeline view. | Architecture lead | Open |
| Mar 21 | Campus Safety liaison | Emergency-boundary warning works but needs stronger language. | Scope/safety | Medium | Revise warning text. | Product owner / Campus Safety | Open |
| Mar 21 | IT security reviewer | Approved reviewer access held, but role matrix still needs full verification. | Access control | Medium | Complete access matrix. | IT security reviewer | Open |
| Mar 22 | Compliance reviewer | Synthetic data controls held. Do not move to real data until retention rules are resolved. | Compliance | High | Keep production data prohibited. | Compliance reviewer | Open |
| Mar 22 | AI reviewer | AI disabled status is clear; future AI enablement requires its own readiness cycle. | AI governance | Medium | Keep AI disabled. | AI reviewer | Open |
| Mar 22 | Architecture Review Board | Evidence gaps in handoff flow should be treated as stewardship improvement priority. | Evidence | High | Add improvement action. | Architecture Review Board | Open |
Feedback themes¶
| Theme | LMU Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Intake workflow understandable | Campus Operations can follow the basic intake model with scope briefing. |
| Handoff needs improvement | Facilities and Residence Life workflows require clearer ownership and stronger evidence visibility. |
| Evidence timeline matters | Reviewers want visible evidence, not just stored events. |
| Emergency-boundary wording needs refinement | Campus Safety wants stronger “not dispatch” language. |
| Access-control verification remains incomplete | IT will not support pilot until matrix testing is completed. |
| Retention remains a blocker for real data | Compliance will not approve production or sensitive data use. |
| AI must remain disabled | AI reviewer requires separate readiness cycle before enablement. |
Feedback carried forward¶
- Add closure rationale examples.
- Improve handoff owner display.
- Improve evidence timeline visibility.
- Refine emergency-boundary warning text.
- Complete access-control matrix testing.
- Resolve retention before real-data use.
- Keep AI disabled until future readiness cycle.
- Prioritize handoff evidence gap remediation.
Feedback interpretation¶
Feedback supports continued internal engineering review and post-release learning.
Feedback does not support operational pilot because major evidence, access, and governance concerns remain unresolved.