Write and accept the brief use cases for the P1 candidates
Add the use case diagram UCD-001, the user stories US-001 and the brief use cases UC-001 to UC-004 (Synchronize Repository Metadata, Configure Workflow Credentials, Onboard a Repository, Diagnose a Failed Workflow). Review and accept them (RC-019 to RC-024) and the PP-001 row that records them (RC-025), and update TM-001 and the registry. Task: MIL-002#1
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
|
||||
# Review Record: UCD-001
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
| Key | Value |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| ID | RC-019 |
|
||||
| CrossReference | [UCD-001], [QC-UCD-001] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Version History
|
||||
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Artifact Under Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Instance reviewed: [UCD-001]
|
||||
- Checklist used: [QC-UCD-001]
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 1 | Actors are defined with correct UML stereotypes (e.g. `<<System>>`, `<<Actor>>`) | Pass | DevOps Professional and Platform Operator are `<<Actor>>`; Gitea Instance and GitHub are `<<System>>`. |
|
||||
| 2 | System boundary is clearly drawn and labeled | Pass | Boundary "Reusable Workflow Collection". |
|
||||
| 3 | Include/extend relationships are used correctly per UML 2.5.1, not as generic "uses" arrows | Pass | One include and one extend, each with a justification in the Relationships table; the extend applies only on failure. |
|
||||
| 4 | Every actor participates in at least one use case (no orphan actors) | Pass | All four actors appear in the Actor Table with goals. |
|
||||
| 5 | Diagram is traceable to a documented stakeholder need | Pass | S05, S03 and S04 in the Actor Table; SA-001 and BC-001 cited. |
|
||||
| 6 | Use case names are verb phrases describing actor goals, not internal system operations | Pass | Four goal names, none a system operation. |
|
||||
| 7 | Diagram is free of implementation detail (e.g. UI widgets, database tables) | Pass | No tool, file or UI detail. |
|
||||
| 8 | Actor and use case naming is consistent with corresponding Use Case and User Story documents | Pass | Checked mechanically: all four titles and both story roles match. |
|
||||
|
||||
## Overall Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
Go - all eight criteria pass. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
|
||||
|
||||
## Action Items
|
||||
|
||||
| Action | Owner | Due |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| None | - | - |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[UCD-001]: ../../use-case-diagram.md
|
||||
[QC-UCD-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-use-case-diagram.md
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
||||
# Review Record: US-001
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
| Key | Value |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| ID | RC-020 |
|
||||
| CrossReference | [US-001], [QC-US-001] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Version History
|
||||
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Artifact Under Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Instance reviewed: [US-001]
|
||||
- Checklist used: [QC-US-001]
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 1 | Follows INVEST criteria (Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable) | Pass | INVEST check present; US-001.05 and US-001.06 depend on US-001.04 and say so. |
|
||||
| 2 | Written in "As a / I want / So that" form | Pass | All eight. |
|
||||
| 3 | Clear, testable acceptance criteria are included | Pass | Two Given/When/Then criteria per story, each checked by a run or the guide. |
|
||||
| 4 | Traceable to a use case or epic | Pass | Each story traces to one of UC-001 to UC-004 and to MIL-002. |
|
||||
| 5 | Story is sized to fit within a single iteration | Pass | Each is one goal; two are already implemented and only tested. |
|
||||
| 6 | Story statement avoids technical implementation detail | Pass | Domain terms only (mirror, token, runner). |
|
||||
| 7 | Role named in the story matches an actor defined in the Use Case Diagram | Pass | DevOps Professional and Platform Operator both appear in UCD-001. |
|
||||
|
||||
## Overall Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
Go - all seven criteria pass. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
|
||||
|
||||
## Action Items
|
||||
|
||||
| Action | Owner | Due |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| None | - | - |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[US-001]: ../../user-stories.md
|
||||
[QC-US-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-user-story.md
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
|
||||
# Review Record: UC-001
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
| Key | Value |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| ID | RC-021 |
|
||||
| CrossReference | [UC-001], [QC-UC-001] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Version History
|
||||
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Artifact Under Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Instance reviewed: [UC-001]
|
||||
- Checklist used: [QC-UC-001] (Brief format)
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 1 | Consists of a single, concise paragraph summarizing only the primary success scenario | Pass | Finding fixed during this review: the paragraph also described the no-mirror alternative; it now summarizes only the main success scenario (the alternative is US-001.02). |
|
||||
| 2 | Written as an informal multi-paragraph narrative; may mention some alternate flows without formal structure | N-A | Format is Brief. |
|
||||
| 3 | All standard sections are present: actors, preconditions, postconditions, main success scenario, alternative/exception flows | N-A | Format is Brief; the sections of a Brief use case are present (actor, stakeholders, pre- and postconditions, paragraph). |
|
||||
| 4 | Preconditions and postconditions are explicitly defined | Pass | Both stated. |
|
||||
| 5 | Primary actor is explicitly stated | Pass | DevOps Professional. |
|
||||
| 6 | Stakeholders and their interests are stated | Pass | S-IDs from SA-001 with an interest each. |
|
||||
| 7 | Main success scenario is written as clear, numbered steps | N-A | Format is Brief: one paragraph. |
|
||||
| 8 | Alternative/exception flows correctly reference `<<include>>`/`<<extend>>` use cases where relevant, per UML 2.5.1 | N-A | No alternative flows in a Brief use case; the relationships are in UCD-001. |
|
||||
| 9 | Explicit business rules are captured per step where applicable, rather than embedded loosely in narrative text | N-A | No steps in a Brief use case. |
|
||||
| 10 | Naming of actors and use case title is consistent with the corresponding Use Case Diagram and User Stories | Pass | Title and actor match UCD-001 and US-001 exactly. |
|
||||
| 11 | Scope/level (e.g. summary, user-goal, subfunction) is explicitly stated | Pass | Scope and user-goal level stated. |
|
||||
| 12 | Use case is written from the actor's goal perspective, free of UI or implementation detail | Pass | Goal wording; the guides and secrets are named, no UI. |
|
||||
|
||||
## Overall Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
Go - all applicable criteria pass; the one finding (criterion 1) was fixed during the review. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
|
||||
|
||||
## Action Items
|
||||
|
||||
| Action | Owner | Due |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| None | - | - |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[UC-001]: ../../uc-001/uc.md
|
||||
[QC-UC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-use-case.md
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
|
||||
# Review Record: UC-002
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
| Key | Value |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| ID | RC-022 |
|
||||
| CrossReference | [UC-002], [QC-UC-001] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Version History
|
||||
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Artifact Under Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Instance reviewed: [UC-002]
|
||||
- Checklist used: [QC-UC-001] (Brief format)
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 1 | Consists of a single, concise paragraph summarizing only the primary success scenario | Pass | Finding fixed during this review: the paragraph also described the failure alternatives; it now summarizes only the main success scenario (the alternatives are in US-001.03). |
|
||||
| 2 | Written as an informal multi-paragraph narrative; may mention some alternate flows without formal structure | N-A | Format is Brief. |
|
||||
| 3 | All standard sections are present: actors, preconditions, postconditions, main success scenario, alternative/exception flows | N-A | Format is Brief; the sections of a Brief use case are present (actor, stakeholders, pre- and postconditions, paragraph). |
|
||||
| 4 | Preconditions and postconditions are explicitly defined | Pass | Both stated. |
|
||||
| 5 | Primary actor is explicitly stated | Pass | DevOps Professional. |
|
||||
| 6 | Stakeholders and their interests are stated | Pass | S-IDs from SA-001 with an interest each. |
|
||||
| 7 | Main success scenario is written as clear, numbered steps | N-A | Format is Brief: one paragraph. |
|
||||
| 8 | Alternative/exception flows correctly reference `<<include>>`/`<<extend>>` use cases where relevant, per UML 2.5.1 | N-A | No alternative flows in a Brief use case; the relationships are in UCD-001. |
|
||||
| 9 | Explicit business rules are captured per step where applicable, rather than embedded loosely in narrative text | N-A | No steps in a Brief use case. |
|
||||
| 10 | Naming of actors and use case title is consistent with the corresponding Use Case Diagram and User Stories | Pass | Title and actor match UCD-001 and US-001 exactly. |
|
||||
| 11 | Scope/level (e.g. summary, user-goal, subfunction) is explicitly stated | Pass | Scope and user-goal level stated. |
|
||||
| 12 | Use case is written from the actor's goal perspective, free of UI or implementation detail | Pass | Goal wording; the guides and secrets are named, no UI. |
|
||||
|
||||
## Overall Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
Go - all applicable criteria pass; the one finding (criterion 1) was fixed during the review. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
|
||||
|
||||
## Action Items
|
||||
|
||||
| Action | Owner | Due |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| None | - | - |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[UC-002]: ../../uc-002/uc.md
|
||||
[QC-UC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-use-case.md
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
|
||||
# Review Record: UC-003
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
| Key | Value |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| ID | RC-023 |
|
||||
| CrossReference | [UC-003], [QC-UC-001] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Version History
|
||||
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Artifact Under Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Instance reviewed: [UC-003]
|
||||
- Checklist used: [QC-UC-001] (Brief format)
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 1 | Consists of a single, concise paragraph summarizing only the primary success scenario | Pass | Finding fixed during this review: the paragraph also described the defect alternative; it now summarizes only the main success scenario (see US-001.06). |
|
||||
| 2 | Written as an informal multi-paragraph narrative; may mention some alternate flows without formal structure | N-A | Format is Brief. |
|
||||
| 3 | All standard sections are present: actors, preconditions, postconditions, main success scenario, alternative/exception flows | N-A | Format is Brief; the sections of a Brief use case are present (actor, stakeholders, pre- and postconditions, paragraph). |
|
||||
| 4 | Preconditions and postconditions are explicitly defined | Pass | Both stated. |
|
||||
| 5 | Primary actor is explicitly stated | Pass | DevOps Professional. |
|
||||
| 6 | Stakeholders and their interests are stated | Pass | S-IDs from SA-001 with an interest each. |
|
||||
| 7 | Main success scenario is written as clear, numbered steps | N-A | Format is Brief: one paragraph. |
|
||||
| 8 | Alternative/exception flows correctly reference `<<include>>`/`<<extend>>` use cases where relevant, per UML 2.5.1 | N-A | No alternative flows in a Brief use case; the relationships are in UCD-001. |
|
||||
| 9 | Explicit business rules are captured per step where applicable, rather than embedded loosely in narrative text | N-A | No steps in a Brief use case. |
|
||||
| 10 | Naming of actors and use case title is consistent with the corresponding Use Case Diagram and User Stories | Pass | Title and actor match UCD-001 and US-001 exactly. |
|
||||
| 11 | Scope/level (e.g. summary, user-goal, subfunction) is explicitly stated | Pass | Scope and user-goal level stated. |
|
||||
| 12 | Use case is written from the actor's goal perspective, free of UI or implementation detail | Pass | Goal wording; the guides and secrets are named, no UI. |
|
||||
|
||||
## Overall Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
Go - all applicable criteria pass; the one finding (criterion 1) was fixed during the review. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
|
||||
|
||||
## Action Items
|
||||
|
||||
| Action | Owner | Due |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| None | - | - |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[UC-003]: ../../uc-003/uc.md
|
||||
[QC-UC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-use-case.md
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
|
||||
# Review Record: UC-004
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
| Key | Value |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| ID | RC-024 |
|
||||
| CrossReference | [UC-004], [QC-UC-001] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Version History
|
||||
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Artifact Under Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Instance reviewed: [UC-004]
|
||||
- Checklist used: [QC-UC-001] (Brief format)
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 1 | Consists of a single, concise paragraph summarizing only the primary success scenario | Pass | Finding fixed during this review: the paragraph also described the runner and no-category alternatives; it now summarizes only the main success scenario (the alternatives are in US-001.07 and US-001.08). |
|
||||
| 2 | Written as an informal multi-paragraph narrative; may mention some alternate flows without formal structure | N-A | Format is Brief. |
|
||||
| 3 | All standard sections are present: actors, preconditions, postconditions, main success scenario, alternative/exception flows | N-A | Format is Brief; the sections of a Brief use case are present (actor, stakeholders, pre- and postconditions, paragraph). |
|
||||
| 4 | Preconditions and postconditions are explicitly defined | Pass | Both stated. |
|
||||
| 5 | Primary actor is explicitly stated | Pass | DevOps Professional. |
|
||||
| 6 | Stakeholders and their interests are stated | Pass | S-IDs from SA-001 with an interest each. |
|
||||
| 7 | Main success scenario is written as clear, numbered steps | N-A | Format is Brief: one paragraph. |
|
||||
| 8 | Alternative/exception flows correctly reference `<<include>>`/`<<extend>>` use cases where relevant, per UML 2.5.1 | N-A | No alternative flows in a Brief use case; the relationships are in UCD-001. |
|
||||
| 9 | Explicit business rules are captured per step where applicable, rather than embedded loosely in narrative text | N-A | No steps in a Brief use case. |
|
||||
| 10 | Naming of actors and use case title is consistent with the corresponding Use Case Diagram and User Stories | Pass | Title and actor match UCD-001 and US-001 exactly. |
|
||||
| 11 | Scope/level (e.g. summary, user-goal, subfunction) is explicitly stated | Pass | Scope and user-goal level stated. |
|
||||
| 12 | Use case is written from the actor's goal perspective, free of UI or implementation detail | Pass | Goal wording; the guides and secrets are named, no UI. |
|
||||
|
||||
## Overall Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
Go - all applicable criteria pass; the one finding (criterion 1) was fixed during the review. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
|
||||
|
||||
## Action Items
|
||||
|
||||
| Action | Owner | Due |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| None | - | - |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[UC-004]: ../../uc-004/uc.md
|
||||
[QC-UC-001]: ../../../framework/qc/qc-use-case.md
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
||||
# Review Record: PP-001 Project Plan (P1 use cases)
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
| Key | Value |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| ID | RC-025 |
|
||||
| CrossReference | [PP-001], [BC-001] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Version History
|
||||
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Initial version | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Artifact Under Review
|
||||
|
||||
- Instance reviewed: [PP-001]
|
||||
- Checklist used: none: the Project Plan has no QC checklist. Validated against the Business Case [BC-001] and the Go / No-Go criteria of each listed milestone, as `PP.md` prescribes.
|
||||
|
||||
## Checklist Results
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Criterion | Status | Evidence/Notes |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 1 | Every milestone in the plan has a `MIL-*` document and the plan's dates equal that document's target date | Pass | Unchanged. |
|
||||
| 2 | Every Business Case scope item is covered by a gateway | Pass | Unchanged. |
|
||||
| 3 | The schedule respects the Business Case constraints | Pass | Unchanged. |
|
||||
| 4 | Dependencies between milestones are stated | Pass | Unchanged. |
|
||||
| 5 | Every gateway has an owner who is a stakeholder ID | Pass | Unchanged. |
|
||||
| 6 | Plan content is internally consistent | Pass | The appendix's use case candidates 1 to 4 correspond to UC-001 to UC-004; the plan cites US-001. |
|
||||
| 7 | Open Issues are current | Pass | Finding fixed during this review: the item about use cases said the documents "need review". It now states that the P1 candidates are written as UC-001 to UC-004 with UCD-001 and US-001, and that P2 and P3 have none. |
|
||||
|
||||
## Overall Verdict
|
||||
|
||||
Go - all seven criteria pass; the one finding was fixed during the review. S01 gave the Go in chat on 2026-10-10, standing in for the other reviewers as ADR-0002 records; there is no independent reader.
|
||||
|
||||
## Action Items
|
||||
|
||||
| Action | Owner | Due |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| None | - | - |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[PP-001]: ../../project-plan.md
|
||||
[BC-001]: ../../business-case.md
|
||||
@@ -4,13 +4,13 @@
|
||||
| Key | Value |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| ID | TM-001 |
|
||||
| CrossReference | [BC-001], [SA-001], [PP-001], [MIL-001], [MIL-002], [MIL-003], [MIL-004], [MIL-005], [MIL-006], [RC-001], [RC-002], [RC-003], [RC-004], [RC-005], [RC-006], [RC-007], [RC-008], [RC-009], [RC-010], [RC-011], [RC-012], [RC-013], [RC-014], [RC-015], [RC-016], [RC-017], [RC-018], [ADR-0001], [ADR-0002], [ADR-0003], [ADR-0004] |
|
||||
| CrossReference | [BC-001], [SA-001], [PP-001], [MIL-001], [MIL-002], [MIL-003], [MIL-004], [MIL-005], [MIL-006], [RC-001], [RC-002], [RC-003], [RC-004], [RC-005], [RC-006], [RC-007], [RC-008], [RC-009], [RC-010], [RC-011], [RC-012], [RC-013], [RC-014], [RC-015], [RC-016], [RC-017], [RC-018], [RC-019], [RC-020], [RC-021], [RC-022], [RC-023], [RC-024], [RC-025], [UCD-001], [US-001], [UC-001], [UC-002], [UC-003], [UC-004], [ADR-0001], [ADR-0002], [ADR-0003], [ADR-0004] |
|
||||
|
||||
## Version History
|
||||
| Date | Status | Author | Reviewer | Change | Commit |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| 2026-10-10 | Deprecated | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Added RC-017 for PP-001 | [676a262] |
|
||||
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Added ADR-0004 and RC-018 | [b22a2cd] |
|
||||
| 2026-10-10 | Deprecated | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Added ADR-0004 and RC-018 | [b22a2cd] |
|
||||
| 2026-10-10 | Accepted | Jens Tirsvad Nielsen | S01 | Added UCD-001, US-001, UC-001 to UC-004 and RC-019 to RC-025 | pending |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -24,9 +24,9 @@ updated whenever an artifact instance is created or reviewed.
|
||||
|
||||
| Artifact Instance | Type | Upstream (Backward Link) | Downstream (Forward Link) | Last Reviewed (RC-ID) |
|
||||
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| [SA-001] | SA | - | [BC-001] | [RC-004] |
|
||||
| [SA-001] | SA | - | [BC-001], [UCD-001] | [RC-004] |
|
||||
| [BC-001] | BC | [SA-001] | [PP-001], [MIL-001], [MIL-002], [MIL-003], [MIL-004], [MIL-005], [MIL-006] | [RC-001], [RC-008] |
|
||||
| [PP-001] | PP | [BC-001], [SA-001] | [MIL-001], [MIL-002], [MIL-003], [MIL-004], [MIL-005], [MIL-006] | [RC-002], [RC-009], [RC-015], [RC-017] |
|
||||
| [PP-001] | PP | [BC-001], [SA-001] | [MIL-001], [MIL-002], [MIL-003], [MIL-004], [MIL-005], [MIL-006], [US-001] | [RC-002], [RC-009], [RC-015], [RC-017], [RC-025] |
|
||||
| [MIL-001] | MIL | [BC-001], [PP-001] | [MIL-002] | [RC-003] |
|
||||
| [MIL-002] | MIL | [BC-001], [PP-001], [MIL-001] | [MIL-003], [MIL-005] | [RC-005] |
|
||||
| [MIL-003] | MIL | [BC-001], [PP-001], [MIL-002] | [MIL-004] | [RC-006] |
|
||||
@@ -55,11 +55,24 @@ updated whenever an artifact instance is created or reviewed.
|
||||
| [RC-016] | RC | [MIL-006] | - | - |
|
||||
| [RC-017] | RC | [PP-001] | - | - |
|
||||
| [RC-018] | RC | [ADR-0004] | - | - |
|
||||
| [UCD-001] | UCD | [SA-001], [BC-001] | [US-001], [UC-001], [UC-002], [UC-003], [UC-004] | [RC-019] |
|
||||
| [US-001] | US | [UCD-001], [BC-001], [MIL-001], [MIL-002] | [UC-001], [UC-002], [UC-003], [UC-004] | [RC-020] |
|
||||
| [UC-001] | UC | [UCD-001], [US-001], [SA-001] | - | [RC-021] |
|
||||
| [UC-002] | UC | [UCD-001], [US-001], [SA-001] | - | [RC-022] |
|
||||
| [UC-003] | UC | [UCD-001], [US-001], [SA-001] | - | [RC-023] |
|
||||
| [UC-004] | UC | [UCD-001], [US-001], [SA-001] | - | [RC-024] |
|
||||
| [RC-019] | RC | [UCD-001] | - | - |
|
||||
| [RC-020] | RC | [US-001] | - | - |
|
||||
| [RC-021] | RC | [UC-001] | - | - |
|
||||
| [RC-022] | RC | [UC-002] | - | - |
|
||||
| [RC-023] | RC | [UC-003] | - | - |
|
||||
| [RC-024] | RC | [UC-004] | - | - |
|
||||
| [RC-025] | RC | [PP-001] | - | - |
|
||||
|
||||
## Coverage Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- `-` in Upstream means foundational (SA-001 has no prerequisite). In Downstream it means nothing is built on the instance yet. In Last Reviewed it means no `RC-*` exists (review records are not themselves reviewed).
|
||||
- Types with no instance yet: KPI, BMC, BPMN, UCD, US, UC, SSD, DM, OC, SD, DCD, ERD, GOV, DICT. The Project Plan lists use case candidates, but the formal use cases wait for a use case diagram and user stories.
|
||||
- Types with no instance yet: KPI, BMC, BPMN, SSD, DM, OC, SD, DCD, ERD, GOV, DICT. The four P1 use case candidates are written as brief use cases (UC-001 to UC-004); the P2 and P3 candidates have no use case document yet.
|
||||
- PP-001 and TM-001 have no QC checklist; RC-002 validated PP-001 against its Business Case constraints and the milestone Go / No-Go criteria. TM-001 has no review record.
|
||||
- All review records are `Accepted` after S01 stood in for S05 on 2026-10-10. The author and S01 are the same person, so an independent review by S05 is still open (see RC-001).
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -96,5 +109,17 @@ updated whenever an artifact instance is created or reviewed.
|
||||
[RC-016]: ./reviews/rc-016-mil-006.md
|
||||
[RC-017]: ./reviews/rc-017-project-plan-mil-006.md
|
||||
[RC-018]: ./reviews/rc-018-adr-0004.md
|
||||
[676a262]: https://git.tirsystem.com/TirSystem/github-action/commit/676a26240563338307c0454c3bf15b960bdb58ca
|
||||
[UCD-001]: ../use-case-diagram.md
|
||||
[US-001]: ../user-stories.md
|
||||
[UC-001]: ../uc-001/uc.md
|
||||
[UC-002]: ../uc-002/uc.md
|
||||
[UC-003]: ../uc-003/uc.md
|
||||
[UC-004]: ../uc-004/uc.md
|
||||
[RC-019]: ./reviews/rc-019-ucd-001.md
|
||||
[RC-020]: ./reviews/rc-020-us-001.md
|
||||
[RC-021]: ./reviews/rc-021-uc-001.md
|
||||
[RC-022]: ./reviews/rc-022-uc-002.md
|
||||
[RC-023]: ./reviews/rc-023-uc-003.md
|
||||
[RC-024]: ./reviews/rc-024-uc-004.md
|
||||
[RC-025]: ./reviews/rc-025-pp-001-use-cases.md
|
||||
[b22a2cd]: https://git.tirsystem.com/TirSystem/github-action/commit/b22a2cd59235078656c4440b945b787f88fbd345
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user