67 lines
3.0 KiB
TeX
67 lines
3.0 KiB
TeX
%% SCRAP: archive/quality/validation/phase-1-protocol
|
|
%% SOURCE: docs/working/archive/quality/validation/phase-1-protocol.md
|
|
%% STATUS: HISTORICAL
|
|
%% FITS: none
|
|
%% EDITORIAL: lifted — prose rewritten to press voice
|
|
|
|
\section{Phase 1 Governance Validation Protocol (November 2025)}
|
|
|
|
This protocol, prepared 3 November 2025, defined the acceptance test
|
|
for the Phase 1 GitHub governance workflow system. It verified that all
|
|
document types routed correctly, approval chains triggered, and backlog
|
|
access control was enforced. The system being tested has since been
|
|
superseded; the protocol is preserved as a historical audit record.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Scope}
|
|
|
|
The protocol covered ten validation domains: template recognition across
|
|
16 document types, submission workflows, approval chains, PM routing
|
|
decisions, backlog entry, vault routing to \texttt{in\_basket}, gatekeeper
|
|
enforcement against unauthorized access, security event logging to
|
|
\texttt{SEC\_LOG.adoc}, label management, and error handling.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Test Structure}
|
|
|
|
Seven test suites organized validation:
|
|
|
|
\begin{description}
|
|
\item[Suite 1 — Template Recognition.]
|
|
All 16 document types (ECO, CAPA, CER, DHR, DWG, ENG, SEC, IR,
|
|
VAL, DTA, DMR, ART, MIN, REL, RMP, and others) were submitted via
|
|
GitHub issue templates and checked for correct label application.
|
|
\item[Suite 2 — Approval Workflows.]
|
|
CAPA QA approval, PM routing decisions, and CER three-phase
|
|
sequential approval (Protocol, Results, Report) were verified end
|
|
to end.
|
|
\item[Suite 3 — Routing and Backlog Entry.]
|
|
Approved documents were routed to the development backlog or
|
|
governance vault. Reference documents (DHR, DMR, etc.) auto-vaulted
|
|
without manual approval.
|
|
\item[Suite 4 — Gatekeeper Enforcement.]
|
|
Unauthorized backlog access attempts were blocked; authorized
|
|
paths and owner (rajames440) direct access were permitted.
|
|
\item[Suite 5 — Security Audit Logging.]
|
|
All bypass attempts were verified in \texttt{SEC\_LOG.adoc} with
|
|
timestamps, actor usernames, and severity labels. Incident Report
|
|
(IR) issues were auto-created for each violation.
|
|
\item[Suite 6 — Label Management.]
|
|
Type label exclusivity and status label progression were verified.
|
|
\item[Suite 7 — Error Handling.]
|
|
Incomplete template detection and workflow feedback comment quality
|
|
were assessed.
|
|
\end{description}
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Pass Criteria}
|
|
|
|
The system passed if all 16 document types were recognizable, all approval
|
|
workflows triggered correctly, documents routed to the correct destination,
|
|
the gatekeeper blocked unauthorized access while permitting authorized
|
|
access, all events logged to \texttt{SEC\_LOG.adoc}, and user feedback was
|
|
clear and actionable.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Execution Plan}
|
|
|
|
The protocol was designed for four-day execution (7--11 hours total):
|
|
Day 1 for templates and approvals, Day 2 for routing and backlog, Day 3
|
|
for security and enforcement, Day 4 for labels and feedback.
|