Requirements Review¶
Example purpose¶
This artifact records the ES-102 requirements review.
The review determines whether the requirements are concrete enough to support Planning and whether the business scenarios are realistic enough to flow through later stages.
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_review.md |
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 |
Review information¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Review Date | Initial ES-102 review |
| Reviewers | Product Owner, Product Engineer, ARB chair, IT security reviewer, AI reviewer, Compliance reviewer, Campus Safety liaison, Facilities reviewer, Residence Life reviewer |
| Requirements Version | LMU-COICP-REQ-001 |
| Review Type | Team review |
| Source Baseline | Accepted ES-101 Vision package |
| Review Decision | Accepted with carried-forward actions |
Scenario coverage review¶
| Scenario | Requirements Coverage | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| COICP-SYN-001 | create synthetic incident, initial owner/status, creation evidence | sufficient for Planning |
| COICP-SYN-118 | owner change, handoff note, status update, evidence history, future review | highest evidence-risk scenario |
| COICP-SYN-204 | scenario-scoped access and denied export | role matrix must be planned |
| COICP-SYN-219 | status transition and closure rationale | transition table must be designed |
| COICP-SYN-322 | block/redirect emergency-related input | Campus Safety wording needed |
| COICP-SYN-407 | optional IT ownership extension | keep scoped to coordination, not ITSM |
Review checklist¶
- [x] Requirements align with ES-101 Vision evidence.
- [x] Requirements are scenario-specific.
- [x] Functional requirements define realistic university behavior.
- [x] Non-functional requirements are tied to scenario risks.
- [x] Constraints preserve internal-review-only scope.
- [x] Use cases use concrete LMU scenarios.
- [x] Traceability connects scenarios to downstream stages.
- [x] AI Incident Summary is disabled through RC-001.
- [x] Emergency-boundary behavior is explicit.
- [x] Role-scoped access is explicit.
- [x] Prohibited behaviors remain visible.
- [x] Planning handoff is clear.
Review findings¶
| ID | Finding | Severity | Scenario | Action | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RRF-001 | Six-scenario set is accepted but must remain stable through Planning and Architecture. | Medium | all | Freeze scenario set for ES-103 handoff. | Product Owner | Open |
| RRF-002 | Handoff evidence for COICP-SYN-118 is the primary auditability risk. | High | COICP-SYN-118 | Plan evidence model and failure behavior. | ARB chair / Product Engineer | Open |
| RRF-003 | Role-scoped access for Residence Life requires explicit matrix. | High | COICP-SYN-204 | Create planning and architecture dependency. | IT security reviewer | Open |
| RRF-004 | AI Incident Summary must remain disabled. | Medium | all | Carry disabled decision through Planning and Release. | AI reviewer | Open |
| RRF-005 | Emergency-boundary wording needs Campus Safety review. | Medium | COICP-SYN-322 | Carry wording and block/redirect behavior forward. | Campus Safety liaison | Open |
| RRF-006 | Status transition table must be defined for HVAC closure. | Medium | COICP-SYN-219 | Carry to Design. | Product Engineer / Facilities reviewer | Open |
| RRF-007 | Synthetic-data cleanup procedure remains unresolved. | Medium | all | Carry to Operations/Governance. | Compliance reviewer | Open |
| RRF-008 | COICP-SYN-407 must not expand COICP into ITSM. | Medium | COICP-SYN-407 | Keep as optional ownership/handoff extension. | Product Owner / IT security reviewer | Open |
Review decision¶
Accepted with carried-forward actions.
The ES-102 requirements package is sufficiently concrete to begin ES-103 Planning. It gives Planning a clear scenario set, realistic university business problems, required behaviors, trustworthiness targets, constraints, use cases, traceability, and unresolved issues.
Conditions on acceptance¶
Planning may begin, but these items must not be treated as finalized:
- exact status transition table;
- exact role matrix;
- emergency-boundary warning language;
- retention and cleanup procedure;
- review package/export implementation scope;
- accessibility standard;
- March 18–22 availability target;
- any AI enablement.