Skip to content

Assumptions

LMU/COICP Example

Assumptions Example

Record LMU/COICP assumptions about adoption, scenario realism, data, roles, evidence, AI disablement, internal engineering review, support, and governance before they become hidden risk.

ES-101 Assumptions Validation

Example purpose

This artifact records assumptions that shape LMU/COICP.

Assumptions are not facts. They are claims the team is relying on before full evidence exists. These assumptions must be validated, converted into requirements, carried forward as risks, or retired.

Project

LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform

Document control

Field Value
Artifact owner COICP Product Owner
Primary reviewers Campus Operations, Facilities, Campus Safety, Residence Life, IT, Compliance, AI reviewer, Architecture Review Board chair
Status Accepted for ES-101 vision baseline
Last updated 2026-07-06
Related Engineering Stage ES-101 — Vision and Problem Definition
Project workspace target docs/project-workspace/vision/assumptions.md

Vision context

Field Value
Vision baseline produced LMU-COICP-VISION-001
Requirements baseline expected next LMU-COICP-REQ-001
Planning baseline expected later 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

Assumption register

ID Assumption Scenario Driver Why It Matters Validation Needed Owner Status
A-001 Campus Operations reviewers can create a synthetic record quickly enough for COICP-SYN-001 to be realistic. COICP-SYN-001 Intake burden determines adoption value. usability/review observation Product Engineer Open
A-002 Campus Operations and Facilities agree that COICP-SYN-118 represents a real handoff pain point. COICP-SYN-118 Handoff evidence is the primary value proposition. stakeholder review Product Owner / Facilities reviewer Open
A-003 Residence Life access for COICP-SYN-204 can be scenario-scoped without blocking legitimate review. COICP-SYN-204 Access-control model depends on workable role boundaries. security/compliance review IT security reviewer Open
A-004 Facilities closure rationale for COICP-SYN-219 can be captured without excessive burden. COICP-SYN-219 Closure evidence supports reviewability. workflow review Facilities reviewer Open
A-005 Campus Safety can define clear block/redirect language for COICP-SYN-322. COICP-SYN-322 Safety boundary must be understandable. Campus Safety review Campus Safety liaison Open
A-006 COICP-SYN-407 can remain a scoped ownership/handoff extension without becoming ITSM. COICP-SYN-407 Prevents scope drift. Product/IT review Product Owner / IT reviewer Open
A-007 The Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset is realistic enough for internal engineering review. all scenarios Downstream review depends on credible synthetic data. dataset review Compliance reviewer / Product Owner Open
A-008 24 approved reviewer accounts are sufficient for internal engineering review. all scenarios Deployment and access tests depend on this boundary. operations review IT security reviewer Open
A-009 AI Incident Summary can be deferred/disabled without undermining first-baseline value. all scenarios Core value must come from workflow/evidence/access, not AI. product/AI review AI reviewer / Product Owner Open
A-010 Internal engineering review can evaluate value without operational pilot. all scenarios Prevents premature real-use deployment. governance review Product Owner Open
A-011 Evidence history can support reviewability without full enterprise integration. COICP-SYN-118, 219 Architecture can remain focused. architecture review ARB chair Open
A-012 Retention and cleanup rules can be resolved before any future operational consideration. all scenarios Compliance boundary remains open. compliance review Compliance reviewer Open

Assumptions converted to requirements or constraints

Assumption ID Resulting Requirement or Constraint
A-003 FR-006: scenario-scoped role-based access
A-005 FR-012 / C-001: emergency-boundary block or redirect
A-007 C-006: Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset only
A-008 C-007: approved reviewer accounts only
A-009 FR-007 / C-003: AI Incident Summary disabled through RC-001
A-010 C-012: operational pilot not approved
A-011 FR-005 / NFR-008: evidence history and reviewability

Assumptions requiring early validation

ID Assumption Needed Before
A-002 COICP-SYN-118 is accepted as primary handoff/evidence scenario. Planning
A-003 Role-scoped Residence Life access is feasible. Requirements / Architecture
A-005 Emergency-boundary wording is clear. Design
A-007 Synthetic dataset is sufficiently realistic. Release
A-009 AI-disabled baseline is acceptable. Requirements
A-012 Retention/cleanup can be governed later. Operations / Governance

Continue to Success Metrics

Define how success, trustworthiness, adoption, operation, and failure will be recognized.

Open Success Metrics →