Release Conditions

LMU/COICP Example

Release Conditions Example

Define LMU/COICP RC-001 mandatory release conditions, monitoring requirements, stop criteria, post-review requirements, communication requirements, and pilot-blocking controls.

ES-110 Conditions Controlled LMU Use

Example AreaLMU/COICP

Current PageRelease Conditions

FocusLMU release controls

UseDefine conditions and stop criteria

Repository Areadocs/examples/lmu-coicp/release/

← Previous Release Scope

Current Release Conditions

Next → Release Decision Record

Example purpose

This artifact defines the conditions for the approved LMU internal engineering review.

The conditions prevent internal review from becoming accidental operational use.

Project

LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform

Document control

Field	Value
Artifact owner	LMU COICP Product Owner
Primary reviewers	Product Engineer, Architecture Review Board chair, IT security reviewer, AI reviewer, Compliance reviewer, Campus Safety liaison
Status	Accepted
Last updated	2026-07-06
Related Engineering Stage	ES-110 — Release Readiness
Project workspace target	docs/project-workspace/release/release_conditions.md

Candidate context

Field	Value
Candidate	LMU-COICP-RC-001
Planned deployment ID	DEP-LMU-COICP-2026-03-18-001
Planned review environment	LMU-COICP Internal Engineering Review Environment
Planned dataset	Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset
Planned synthetic records	421
Planned reviewer accounts	24
Planned review window	March 18–22, 2026
AI Incident Summary	Disabled
Operational pilot	Not approved

Conditions

ID	Condition	Reason	Owner	Verification
RC-001	Use Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset only.	Retention and access risks remain.	Product Owner / Compliance Reviewer	Dataset review before use.
RC-002	Do not use for real LMU campus incidents.	Evidence and access guardrails incomplete.	Product Owner	Release scope review.
RC-003	Keep AI Incident Summary disabled.	AI workflow deferred.	AI Reviewer	AI release review.
RC-004	Fix invalid status transition defect before operational pilot.	Workflow integrity risk.	Product Engineer	Retest DEF-001.
RC-005	Complete access-control matrix testing before pilot.	Unauthorized access risk.	IT Security Reviewer	Retest DEF-002.
RC-006	Verify evidence write failure behavior before pilot.	Auditability risk.	Architecture Review Board chair	Retest DEF-003.
RC-007	Formalize emergency/prohibited category testing before pilot.	Scope and safety boundary risk.	Product Engineer / Campus Safety liaison	Retest DEF-004.
RC-008	Finalize build/test command evidence before release-quality baseline.	Repeatability risk.	Product Engineer	Retest DEF-005.
RC-009	Do not store production or sensitive records until retention is resolved.	Governance risk.	Compliance Reviewer	Compliance review.
RC-010	Do not expand beyond 24 approved reviewer accounts without repeating readiness review.	Scope control risk.	Product Owner / IT Security Reviewer	Access review.

Monitoring requirements

• Monitor internal review feedback.
• Track whether reviewers find evidence-flow or access-control issues.
• Record all defect updates.
• Record attempted use outside approved internal-review scope.
• Record evidence/state mismatch concerns.
• Record access-control bypass concerns.
• Record whether sample data begins to resemble real operational data.
• Confirm AI Incident Summary remains disabled.
• Confirm emergency-boundary scenario is not treated as normal COICP workflow.

Rollback / stop criteria

Stop internal review if:

• synthetic data begins to resemble real operational data;
• reviewers identify an access-control bypass;
• state changes can occur without evidence events;
• AI Incident Summary becomes enabled;
• real campus incidents are entered;
• emergency-related incidents are entered as normal pilot records;
• sensitive records are introduced;
• users expand beyond approved LMU reviewer groups;
• reviewers treat RC-001 as operational.

Post-review requirements

• Conduct follow-up release-readiness review after DEF-001, DEF-002, and DEF-003 are addressed.
• Update release decision record before any operational pilot.
• Update release scope if capabilities change.
• Update AI release review before enabling any AI summary feature.
• Update guardrail release review after evidence failure behavior is verified.
• Update compliance review before production or sensitive data use.
• Carry monitoring and stewardship findings into governance.

Communication requirements

Any communication about RC-001 must state:

• LMU internal engineering review only;
• not approved for operational pilot;
• no real campus incidents;
• Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset only;
• AI Incident Summary disabled;
• open defects remain;
• follow-up release readiness review required before pilot.

Condition decision

The release conditions are mandatory.

Violation of these conditions should stop internal review and require release-readiness reassessment.

Continue to Release Decision Record

Record the release decision, rationale, evidence considered, risks accepted, follow-up, and authority.

Open Release Decision Record →