POS Coverage and Gap Analysis

Traceability Coverage and Gap Analysis

Purpose

Assess how completely the current repository supports requirements-to-design traceability and identify gaps that need stakeholder validation, additional documentation, or tests.

Inputs

• Trace catalog in traceability/requirements-design-traceability.md.
• Design map in traceability/design-decision-map.md.
• Repository documentation, source code, and tests listed in the trace catalog.

BA Activities

• Manage requirements lifecycle.
• Analyze requirements and define design options.
• Evaluate solution.
• Elicit and collaborate.

Techniques Applied

• Gap analysis: compared requirement statements, design elements, evidence, and tests.
• Risk analysis: identified where unvalidated policy or weak evidence could affect operations.
• Acceptance criteria: noted where tests exist or where acceptance evidence is missing.

Coverage Summary

Area	Trace Coverage	Evidence Strength	Notes
Automated reconciliation	High	Strong	Requirements trace to workflow code, audit controls, README, and focused tests.
Matching profiles	High	Strong	Code and tests cover transforms, target fields, email usernames, crosswalks, and validation.
Candidate review	High	Strong	Candidate services and viewer behavior have detailed test coverage.
Manual reconciliation audit	High	Strong	Edit classifications and invalid amount blocking are tested.
InitialBalances transfer	High	Strong	Preflight, blocking, aggregation, audit, manifest, and atomic publication are tested.
Managed desktop runs	High	Strong	Staging, manifests, and privacy behavior are tested.
GUI workflow state	Moderate to high	Strong for controller state, moderate for rendered GUI behavior	Controller tests exist; full visual/operator usability validation is outside this trace round.
Sandbox generator	High	Strong	Determinism and production workflow verification are tested.
Windows packaging	Moderate	Moderate	Repository tests inspect installer/script properties; clean-machine install evidence is not in repo.
Business approval	Low	Unknown	Implementation is observable, but formal stakeholder approval is not captured in repo artifacts.

Traceability Gaps

Gap ID	Gap Statement	Impact	Evidence Quality	Related Requirements	Suggested Action	Validation Owner
GAP-001	Requirements are implementation-derived and not marked as approved business requirements.	Traceability could be mistaken for formal signoff.	Observed repository behavior, approval unknown	All	Add status fields for Draft, Validated, Approved, Deferred, Rejected.	Product owner
GAP-002	Business rationale for excluding no Lunchtab match from manual-review exceptions is not separately approved.	Staff may miss a class of exceptions if policy changes.	Observed code/docs, business rationale inferred	REQ-003, REQ-008	Confirm exception triage policy.	Operations lead
GAP-003	Candidate score weights and confidence thresholds are implemented but not tied to stakeholder-approved criteria.	Candidate rankings may not reflect staff trust model.	Observed code, intent inferred	REQ-008, REQ-009	Run validation workshop using real anonymized cases or approved synthetic cases.	Reconciliation staff lead
GAP-004	All-or-nothing InitialBalances blocking is implemented but not recorded as an approved policy decision.	Partial-safe import expectations could conflict with operational needs.	Observed code/docs, approval unknown	REQ-013	Record policy decision and exception handling procedure.	Finance/operations approver
GAP-005	Manifest privacy controls are documented and tested, but no explicit data-handling policy reference is captured.	Audit/privacy claims may be incomplete for governance review.	Observed, policy unknown	REQ-015	Validate manifest content against internal data policy.	Data owner
GAP-006	GUI rendered behavior and operator comprehension are not fully traceable to usability acceptance evidence.	Controller correctness may not fully prove operator readiness.	Observed tests, validation unknown	REQ-016	Add operator acceptance checklist or GUI walkthrough record.	Operations lead
GAP-007	Packaging trace lacks clean Windows 10/11 install, upgrade, uninstall, and no-Python acceptance evidence in repository artifacts.	Release readiness depends on manual validation outside tests.	README states checklist, evidence unknown	REQ-019	Store release validation record per release.	Release owner
GAP-008	Profile ownership and approval workflow are not defined in code artifacts.	Venue profile changes could alter matching behavior without governance.	Inferred from profile capability	REQ-004	Define profile change-control requirement.	Product owner and operations lead

Acceptance Coverage Notes

• Strong automated acceptance coverage exists where business rules are encoded in tests.
• Human acceptance coverage is still needed for operator-facing policies, candidate ranking trust, profile governance, and release deployment.
• No future-state recommendation is treated as approved in this artifact; gaps are validation needs until stakeholders confirm desired outcomes.

Traceability

• GAP-001 applies to every requirement because all requirements in this round are derived from implementation and documentation evidence.
• GAP-002 and GAP-003 attach to manual review and candidate design decisions DEC-002, DEC-006, and DEC-007.
• GAP-004 attaches to InitialBalances design decision DEC-010.
• GAP-005 attaches to manifest design decision DEC-012.
• GAP-007 attaches to packaging design decision DEC-015.

Validation Needs

The next BA step should be stakeholder validation, not additional code inspection. The recommended validation sequence is:

1. Confirm requirement statuses and owners.
2. Confirm operational exception policies.
3. Confirm profile governance.
4. Confirm audit/privacy obligations.
5. Confirm release acceptance evidence expectations.