Dependency Map
LMU/COICP Example
Dependency Map Example
Build the LMU/COICP planning baseline around concrete scenarios that flow into Architecture and later stages.
ES-103
Dependencies
Planning Inputs
Example purpose
This artifact is part of the ES-103 — Planning package for the LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform. It keeps planning tied to realistic LMU business problems rather than generic categories.
Project
LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform
Document control
| Field |
Value |
| Artifact owner |
COICP Product Engineer |
| Primary reviewers |
COICP Product Owner, Architecture Review Board chair, IT security reviewer, AI reviewer, Compliance reviewer, Campus Safety liaison |
| Status |
Accepted for ES-103 planning baseline |
| Last updated |
2026-07-06 |
| Related Engineering Stage |
ES-103 — Planning |
| Project workspace target |
docs/project-workspace/planning/dependency_map.md |
Planning context
| Field |
Value |
| Source requirements package |
ES-102 — Requirements and Constraints |
| Planning baseline produced |
LMU-COICP-PLAN-001 |
| Architecture baseline expected next |
LMU-COICP-ARCH-001 |
| Design baseline expected later |
LMU-COICP-DES-001 |
| Implementation baseline expected later |
LMU-COICP-IMPL-001 |
| Integrated baseline expected later |
LMU-COICP-INT-001 |
| Release candidate expected later |
LMU-COICP-RC-001 |
| Downstream release posture |
Internal engineering review only |
| Planned downstream review environment |
LMU-COICP Internal Engineering Review Environment |
| Planned downstream dataset |
Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset |
| Planned downstream synthetic records |
421 |
| Planned downstream reviewer accounts |
24 |
| Planned downstream review window |
March 18–22, 2026 |
| AI Incident Summary |
Deferred / disabled |
| Operational pilot |
Not approved |
Dependency register
| ID |
Dependency |
Scenario Driver |
Needed By |
Risk If Blocked |
Owner |
Status |
| D-001 |
Six-scenario baseline decision |
all |
Architecture overview |
Architecture becomes generic |
Product Owner |
Open |
| D-002 |
Handoff evidence expectations |
COICP-SYN-118 |
Architecture data/evidence flow, Design TDRs |
evidence model weak |
ARB chair |
Open |
| D-003 |
Residence Life / Facilities role scope |
COICP-SYN-204 / 118 |
Access architecture and design |
access tests vague |
IT security reviewer |
Open |
| D-004 |
Status transition expectations |
COICP-SYN-219 |
Design workflow and testing |
invalid states accepted |
Product Engineer |
Open |
| D-005 |
Emergency-boundary wording owner |
COICP-SYN-322 |
Workflow and exception design |
unsafe boundary |
Campus Safety liaison |
Open |
| D-006 |
AI disablement decision |
all |
AI architecture/design/release |
AI scope drift |
AI reviewer / Product Owner |
Open |
| D-007 |
Synthetic-data boundary |
all |
data design, release, operations |
real/sensitive data risk |
Compliance reviewer |
Open |
| D-008 |
Review-window assumptions |
all |
operations, deployment, monitoring |
support model unclear |
IT operations representative |
Open |
| D-009 |
Reviewer account count and provisioning |
all |
deployment and access testing |
access review incomplete |
IT security reviewer |
Open |
| D-010 |
Review package scope |
COICP-SYN-118 / 204 |
future design/testing |
over-disclosure |
ARB chair / IT security reviewer |
Open |
Continue to Estimation Record
Move to the next planning artifact while preserving the same LMU scenario-driven flow.
Open Estimation Record →