Requirements Readiness Summary¶
Example purpose¶
This artifact summarizes ES-102 Requirements.
It decides whether LMU-COICP-REQ-001 is ready to move into ES-103 Planning and whether the handoff is concrete enough to preserve one continuous software-engineering story.
Project¶
LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform
Document control¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Artifact owner | COICP Product Owner |
| Primary reviewers | COICP Product Engineer, Architecture Review Board chair, IT security reviewer, AI reviewer, Compliance reviewer, Campus Safety liaison, Facilities reviewer, Residence Life reviewer |
| Status | Accepted with carried-forward actions |
| Last updated | 2026-07-06 |
| Related Engineering Stage | ES-102 — Requirements and Constraints |
| Project workspace target | docs/project-workspace/requirements/requirements_readiness_summary.md |
| Previous stage | ES-101 — Vision and Problem Definition |
| Next stage | ES-103 — Planning |
Requirements context¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Source vision package | ES-101 — Vision and Problem Definition |
| Requirements baseline produced | LMU-COICP-REQ-001 |
| Planning baseline expected next | LMU-COICP-PLAN-001 |
| Architecture baseline expected later | 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 |
Readiness decision¶
Decision: Ready to proceed to Planning with scenario-specific carry-forward actions.
The requirements package is ready because it defines realistic LMU business problems that Planning can turn into work packages:
- COICP-SYN-001 Information Commons leak intake;
- COICP-SYN-118 Damen Hall Facilities handoff;
- COICP-SYN-204 Mertz Hall Residence Life access;
- COICP-SYN-219 Cudahy Science HVAC closure;
- COICP-SYN-322 emergency-boundary rejection;
- COICP-SYN-407 optional IT ownership extension.
Completed artifacts¶
| Artifact | Status | Planning Handoff |
|---|---|---|
requirements_overview.md |
Complete | scenario set, themes, risks, boundaries |
functional_requirements.md |
Complete | scenario-specific system behaviors |
non_functional_requirements.md |
Complete | quality targets tied to scenario risks |
constraints.md |
Complete | internal-review-only, synthetic-only, AI-disabled, emergency-boundary constraints |
use_cases.md |
Complete | realistic university workflows |
traceability_matrix.md |
Complete | lineage from requirement to scenario to later stages |
requirements_review.md |
Complete | scenario coverage, findings, acceptance conditions |
Scenario handoff to Planning¶
| Scenario | Planning Must Create |
|---|---|
| COICP-SYN-001 | intake workflow work package and create evidence assumptions |
| COICP-SYN-118 | handoff/evidence work package and reviewability dependency |
| COICP-SYN-204 | scenario-scoped role model and denied-action planning |
| COICP-SYN-219 | status/closure planning and invalid-transition risk |
| COICP-SYN-322 | emergency-boundary planning and Campus Safety wording dependency |
| COICP-SYN-407 | optional IT ownership/handoff extension decision |
Major requirements decisions carried forward¶
- Six-scenario set accepted as the lifecycle thread.
- AI Incident Summary is deferred/disabled through RC-001.
- Internal engineering review only.
- Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset only.
- 24 approved reviewer accounts only.
- Operational pilot is not approved.
- Emergency-related input must be blocked or redirected.
- Evidence history is required for creation, owner change, status change, handoff, closure, and scope-warning behavior.
- Role-based access must be scenario-scoped.
Major risks carried forward¶
| Risk | Scenario | Target Stage |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence write failure | COICP-SYN-118 / 219 | Planning → Architecture → Design → Testing → DEF-003 |
| Role matrix incomplete | COICP-SYN-204 | Planning → Architecture → Design → Testing → DEF-002 |
| Invalid transition | COICP-SYN-219 | Planning → Design → Testing → DEF-001 |
| Emergency-boundary wording weak | COICP-SYN-322 | Planning → Architecture → Design → Testing → DEF-004 |
| AI accidentally enabled | all RC-001 | Planning → Architecture → Testing → Release → Governance |
| Internal review mistaken for pilot | all | Planning → Release → Deployment → Governance |
| Synthetic-data cleanup unresolved | all | Operations → Monitoring → Governance |
| COICP-SYN-407 scope drift into ITSM | COICP-SYN-407 | Planning → Architecture |
Readiness for ES-103¶
Yes, Planning can begin.
Planning must not invent a different project. It must plan the same scenario set, same business problems, same evidence needs, same access boundaries, same AI-disabled posture, and same internal-review-only release posture.
Final readiness statement¶
LMU/COICP is ready to begin ES-103 Planning.
The requirements baseline now gives Planning concrete university business problems and a clear handoff. This establishes the lineage needed for the reader to follow one realistic software project through every subsequent stage.