Skip to content

Test Plan

LMU/COICP Example

Test Plan Example

Define LMU/COICP test scope, owners, environment, phases, entry criteria, exit criteria, evidence expectations, out-of-scope areas, and release-readiness implications.

ES-109 Plan Execution Structure
Example AreaLMU/COICP
Current PageTest Plan
FocusLMU test planning
UsePlan ES-109 execution
Repository Areadocs/examples/lmu-coicp/testing/
← Previous Test Strategy
Current Test Plan
Next → Test Cases

Example purpose

This artifact defines the ES-109 test plan for LMU/COICP.

The plan turns the test strategy into execution ownership, test phases, scope boundaries, evidence records, and release-readiness criteria.

Project

LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform

Document control

Field Value
Artifact owner COICP Product Engineer
Primary reviewers Architecture Review Board chair, IT security reviewer, AI reviewer, Compliance reviewer, Campus Safety liaison
Status Accepted for ES-109 execution
Last updated 2026-07-06
Related Engineering Stage ES-109 — Testing and Verification
Project workspace target docs/project-workspace/testing/test_plan.md

Testing context

Field Value
Integrated baseline under test LMU-COICP-INT-001
Candidate produced by testing LMU-COICP-RC-001
Target release posture Internal engineering review only
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 Deferred / disabled
Operational pilot Not approved

Test scope

Test the ES-108 integrated baseline:

  • IncidentRecord;
  • EvidenceEvent;
  • create synthetic incident workflow;
  • partial status and handoff update workflow;
  • basic access checks;
  • initial error behavior;
  • out-of-scope category rejection;
  • emergency-boundary scenario readiness;
  • AI Incident Summary deferment;
  • regression stability after integration.

Out of scope

  • Operational pilot.
  • Real campus incident use.
  • Full post-incident review export.
  • AI Incident Summary generation.
  • Enterprise identity integration.
  • Final retention policy enforcement.
  • Production performance testing.
  • Multi-campus rollout.
  • Public-facing incident portal.
  • Emergency dispatch integration.
  • Emergency notification replacement.
  • Medical, clinical, law enforcement, disciplinary, or student-conduct record handling.

Test ownership

Area LMU Owner Evidence
Incident workflow COICP Product Engineer test_execution_record.md
Evidence event behavior Architecture Review Board chair guardrail_verification.md
Access control IT security reviewer test_execution_record.md, verification_matrix.md
AI boundary AI reviewer ai_verification_record.md
Retention inspection Compliance reviewer regression_check_record.md
Emergency-boundary scenario Campus Safety liaison / Product Engineer test_execution_record.md
Regression Product Engineer regression_check_record.md
Defect tracking Product Engineer defect_log.md
Release-risk interpretation Product Owner / Architecture Review Board testing_readiness_summary.md

Execution phases

Phase Tests Owner Evidence
Phase 1 Entity and create workflow checks Product Engineer test_execution_record.md
Phase 2 Guardrail checks Architecture Review Board chair guardrail_verification.md
Phase 3 Access-control checks IT security reviewer test_execution_record.md
Phase 4 AI boundary checks AI reviewer ai_verification_record.md
Phase 5 Retention and regression checks Product Engineer / Compliance reviewer regression_check_record.md
Phase 6 Defect and readiness review Product Engineer / reviewers defect_log.md, testing_readiness_summary.md

Entry criteria

  • ES-108 integration decision accepted with follow-up.
  • Integrated baseline available.
  • Known ES-108 findings recorded.
  • Test cases defined.
  • Owners assigned.
  • AI Incident Summary deferment understood.
  • Emergency-boundary test scenario identified.
  • Testing artifacts available under docs/project-workspace/testing/.

Exit criteria

  • High-priority guardrails tested or gaps recorded.
  • Defects logged and owned.
  • AI deferment verified.
  • Regression checks recorded.
  • Open defects assigned.
  • ES-110 readiness summarized.
  • Release-readiness risks made explicit.
  • Testing conclusion states whether the baseline is ready for ES-110 evaluation, not release approval.

Continue to Test Cases

Define concrete LMU test cases for the integrated baseline.

Open Test Cases →