Incident Response Plan

LMU/COICP Example

Incident Response Plan Example

Define how LMU responds if RC-001 internal review encounters real data, sensitive data, unauthorized access, missing evidence, AI activation, emergency-boundary misuse, scope confusion, or known defect escalation.

ES-111 Incident Response LMU Boundary Events

Example AreaLMU/COICP

Current PageIncident Response Plan

FocusLMU operational incident response

UseDefine response to review-boundary violations

Repository Areadocs/examples/lmu-coicp/operations/

← Previous Monitoring and Observability Plan

Current Incident Response Plan

Next → Rollback and Stop Plan

Example purpose

This artifact defines how LMU responds if the RC-001 internal engineering review encounters a boundary violation or guardrail concern.

This is not a production incident response plan. It is an incident response plan for a controlled internal engineering review of COICP.

Project

LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform

Document control

Field	Value
Artifact owner	LMU COICP Product Owner
Primary reviewers	Campus Operations lead, IT security reviewer, AI reviewer, Compliance reviewer, Architecture Review Board chair, Campus Safety liaison
Status	Accepted for internal engineering review
Last updated	2026-07-06
Related Engineering Stage	ES-111 — Operational Readiness
Project workspace target	docs/project-workspace/operations/incident_response_plan.md

Operational incident types

Incident Type	LMU Example	First Responder	Escalation	Evidence
Real data violation	Reviewer enters actual campus incident details	Compliance Reviewer	Product Owner	Data incident record
Sensitive data violation	Medical, law enforcement, student conduct, or personal data appears	Compliance Reviewer	Product Owner	Data handling record
Access-control failure	Unapproved reviewer account gains access	IT Security Reviewer	Product Owner	Access incident record
Evidence failure	Synthetic incident state changes without EvidenceEvent	Architecture Review Board Chair	Product Engineer	Defect update
AI boundary failure	AI Incident Summary appears visible or active	AI Review Lead	Product Owner	AI stop record
Emergency-boundary issue	Emergency-related scenario handled as normal COICP case	Campus Safety Liaison	Product Owner	Boundary incident record
Scope confusion	Reviewer says or acts as if RC-001 is a pilot	Product Owner	Product Owner	Communication update
Known defect escalation	DEF-001, DEF-002, or DEF-003 blocks review safety	Product Engineer	Architecture Review Board Chair	Defect update

Response steps

1. Stop the affected review activity.
2. Record the event, time, reviewer group, and scenario if applicable.
3. Identify whether the issue involves data, access, evidence, AI, emergency boundary, scope, or known defect.
4. Notify the responsible LMU owner.
5. Decide whether review may continue, pause, restrict, or stop.
6. Update the defect log, operational risk register, or deployment record as appropriate.
7. Preserve evidence.
8. Re-communicate scope if reviewer confusion contributed.
9. Restart only after the responsible owner records corrective action and the Product Owner approves.

Incident severity

Severity	Description	Default Response
Low	Documentation or wording issue without boundary breach	Clarify and continue
Medium	Scope confusion, synthetic workflow problem, or known defect observation	Pause affected workflow and record
High	Real/sensitive data, access bypass, missing evidence event, AI activation, or emergency-boundary misuse	Stop affected review immediately

Evidence to preserve

• incident ID;
• synthetic scenario ID if applicable;
• reviewer group;
• date/time;
• data category involved;
• affected capability;
• stop/pause decision;
• owner action;
• defect or risk update;
• restart decision;
• whether ES-109, ES-110, ES-111, or ES-112 must be repeated.

Open response questions

• Final compliance procedure for accidental sensitive-data entry must be completed before any pilot.
• Production incident response does not exist because production is not approved.
• Emergency-boundary wording should be reviewed again after Campus Safety synthetic scenario.
• Evidence write failure behavior remains a high-risk test gap.

Continue to Rollback and Stop Plan

Define LMU stop, pause, access removal, dataset reset, and return-to-stage controls.

Open Rollback and Stop Plan →