--- stepsCompleted: - step-01-document-discovery - step-02-prd-analysis - step-03-epic-coverage-validation - step-04-ux-alignment - step-05-epic-quality-review - step-06-final-assessment assessmentDate: "2026-05-05" project: "Campaign_Tracker App" documentsSelected: prd: "_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/prd.md" architecture: "_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/architecture.md" epics: "_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/epics.md" ux: "_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/ux-design-specification.md" --- # Implementation Readiness Assessment Report **Date:** 2026-05-05 **Project:** Campaign_Tracker App ## Step 1 - Document Discovery ### PRD Files Found **Whole Documents:** - `prd.md` (24,991 bytes, modified 2026-05-05 11:49 AM) **Sharded Documents:** - None found ### Architecture Files Found **Whole Documents:** - `architecture.md` (10,594 bytes, modified 2026-05-05 11:51 AM) **Sharded Documents:** - None found ### Epics & Stories Files Found **Whole Documents:** - `epics.md` (78,726 bytes, modified 2026-05-05 11:51 AM) **Sharded Documents:** - None found ### UX Design Files Found **Whole Documents:** - `ux-design-specification.md` (37,892 bytes, modified 2026-05-05 11:51 AM) **Sharded Documents:** - None found ### Issues Found - No duplicate whole/sharded document conflicts found. - No missing required core planning documents found. ### Document Set Confirmation Proceeding with the four whole documents listed above as the authoritative assessment set. ## Step 2 - PRD Analysis ### Functional Requirements FR1: Client services staff can create and maintain municipality account profiles linked to existing jurisdiction identifiers. FR2: Client services staff can store and update municipality operational mailing and delivery addresses for election services. FR3: Client services staff can manage municipality service-contact records, including primary and secondary contacts. FR4: Client services staff can view municipality-specific service defaults from prior election cycles. FR5: Client services staff can create a new election-cycle job for a municipality without altering legacy Access tables. FR6: Client services staff can define election-cycle key dates for data files, proofing, pickups, deliveries, and mail activities. FR7: Client services staff can copy configurable planning defaults from the municipality's prior election-cycle job. FR8: Operations users can mark required planning fields complete and see readiness status for each election-cycle job. FR9: Client services staff can configure addressing service for an election-cycle job, including quantities and dependency fields. FR10: Client services staff can configure envelope service options including purple and blue envelope scenarios. FR11: Client services staff can configure office-copy requirements and related production details. FR12: Client services staff can configure sorting service options including quantity, class, permit/meter, and daily-sort flags. FR13: Users can record transportation-relevant service events tied to configured services. FR14: Operations users can schedule and update milestone dates for all configured service events. FR15: Operations users can view milestone timelines by municipality and by date across active election-cycle jobs. FR16: Operations users can detect missing or conflicting required milestones before execution cutoffs. FR17: Operations users can reassign milestone ownership and due dates across teams. FR18: Production users can update job status at defined process checkpoints. FR19: Support and operations users can log exceptions, blockers, and resolution notes against an election-cycle job. FR20: Users can record status transitions with timestamped history for key operational events. FR21: Users can view current and historical process state for a municipality's election-cycle jobs. FR22: Users can generate a transportation report grouped by date and sorted by county and municipality context. FR23: Users can generate a sorting report by municipality for all jobs with sorting enabled. FR24: Users can generate a sorting report by mail date for all jobs with sorting enabled. FR25: Users can export operational reports for downstream consumption in spreadsheet-compatible formats. FR26: Users can filter reports by date ranges, municipality, county, and service-status criteria. FR27: Administrators can manage user roles and permissions for client services, production, transportation, support, and admin functions. FR28: Administrators can manage extension-layer reference values used by planning and status workflows. FR29: Administrators can define required-field rules for election-cycle readiness checks. FR30: Administrators can configure notification/escalation rules for missed or at-risk milestones. FR31: System users can link extension records to existing legacy identifiers (`ID`, `JCode`/`JurisCode`, `KitID`) for unified workflows. FR32: Administrators can run compatibility validation checks that confirm legacy-table schemas remain unchanged. FR33: Support users can trace report values back to source records across legacy and extension datasets. FR34: Authorized users can correct extension-layer data issues without direct edits to immutable legacy tables. FR35: Authorized operations users can import election-cycle operational schedule data from approved spreadsheet templates, map rows to legacy-linked municipality identifiers, and stage changes for review before publish. FR36: Authorized users can manage proofing/contact workflow status (`Proof Sent`, `Proof Approved`, contact assignments) with full audit history and role-based visibility. Total FRs: 36 ### Non-Functional Requirements NFR1: 95% of authenticated page loads for core workflows complete in 2 seconds or less under normal operating load. NFR2: 95% of create/update operations for election-cycle records complete with user confirmation in 1 second or less. NFR3: Transportation and sorting report generation completes in 30 seconds or less for standard daily/weekly filters. NFR4: 100% of application traffic is encrypted in transit using TLS 1.2+ and verified by quarterly transport-security scans. NFR5: 100% of sensitive stored operational data is encrypted at rest with platform-managed AES-256 controls, verified by monthly configuration audits. NFR6: 100% of privileged operations enforce role-based authorization checks, and unauthorized requests are blocked and logged. NFR7: Security-relevant actions (authentication events and permission-sensitive updates) are logged within 5 seconds and retained for at least 365 days. NFR8: The system supports at least 10x growth in active election-cycle job volume without requiring legacy schema changes. NFR9: The system supports at least 150 concurrent operational users with p95 response time under 2 seconds and error rate under 1% during peak-period load testing. NFR10: MVP screens for forms, tables, and reports meet WCAG 2.1 AA-aligned criteria relevant to keyboard access, labeling, contrast, and focus visibility. NFR11: 100% of critical workflows are operable by keyboard-only interaction and validated against an accessibility test checklist in each release. NFR12: Legacy Access tables are treated as immutable dependencies, and release gates fail on any unauthorized schema delta against the approved baseline. NFR13: Extension-table joins to legacy identifiers maintain at least 99.9% referential consistency, verified by nightly integrity checks and pre-release validation runs. NFR14: Exported report datasets preserve required field parity for existing operational consumers. NFR15: Planned system availability target is 99.5% monthly during operational hours. NFR16: Every key milestone/status update is stored with audit history sufficient for operational reconstruction. NFR17: Recovery procedures ensure no committed extension-record updates are lost for the previous 24 hours of operations. NFR18: 100% of imported spreadsheet rows store provenance metadata (source file identifier, row reference, import timestamp, importing user). NFR19: Import validation detects join-key mismatches and required-field gaps before publish, with deterministic error output and zero silent row drops. Total NFRs: 19 ### Additional Requirements - Immutable legacy-schema policy for Access tables. - Join-key integrity across `ID`, `JCode/JurisCode`, and `KitID`. - Spreadsheet-compatible import/export integration with operational tooling. - Govtech compliance intent: accessibility, security, auditability, and data residency/procurement evidence constraints. ### PRD Completeness Assessment - PRD contains a complete and explicit FR/NFR set including the newly approved spreadsheet-source scope. - Requirements are sufficiently concrete for coverage validation in epics/stories. - Readiness risk remains around implementation detail quality, not requirement discovery completeness. ## Step 3 - Epic Coverage Validation ### Coverage Matrix | FR | Epic Coverage | Status | | --- | --- | --- | | FR1 | Epic 1 / Story 1.10 | Covered | | FR2 | Epic 1 / Story 1.11 | Covered | | FR3 | Epic 1 / Story 1.12 | Covered | | FR4 | Epic 1 / Story 1.13 | Covered | | FR5 | Epic 2 / Story 2.2 | Covered | | FR6 | Epic 2 / Story 2.3 | Covered | | FR7 | Epic 2 / Story 2.4 | Covered | | FR8 | Epic 2 / Story 2.5 | Covered | | FR9 | Epic 3 / Story 3.1 | Covered | | FR10 | Epic 3 / Story 3.2 | Covered | | FR11 | Epic 3 / Story 3.3 | Covered | | FR12 | Epic 3 / Story 3.4 | Covered | | FR13 | Epic 3 / Story 3.5 | Covered | | FR14 | Epic 4 / Story 4.1 | Covered | | FR15 | Epic 4 / Story 4.2 | Covered | | FR16 | Epic 4 / Story 4.3 | Covered | | FR17 | Epic 4 / Story 4.4 | Covered | | FR18 | Epic 5 / Story 5.1 | Covered | | FR19 | Epic 5 / Story 5.2 | Covered | | FR20 | Epic 5 / Story 5.4 | Covered | | FR21 | Epic 5 / Story 5.5 | Covered | | FR22 | Epic 5 / Story 5.6 | Covered | | FR23 | Epic 6 / Story 6.1 | Covered | | FR24 | Epic 6 / Story 6.2 | Covered | | FR25 | Epic 6 / Story 6.3 | Covered | | FR26 | Epic 6 / Story 6.3 | Covered | | FR27 | Epic 1 / Story 1.4 + 1.9 | Covered | | FR28 | Epic 1 seed + Epic 6 / Story 6.6 | Covered | | FR29 | Epic 1 seed + Epic 6 / Story 6.6 | Covered | | FR30 | Epic 1 seed + Epic 6 / Story 6.6 | Covered | | FR31 | Epic 1 / Story 1.8 | Covered | | FR32 | Epic 1 / Story 1.7 | Covered | | FR33 | Epic 6 / Story 6.4 | Covered | | FR34 | Epic 6 / Story 6.5 | Covered | | FR35 | Epic 2 / Story 2.6 | Covered (new) | | FR36 | Epic 3 / Story 3.2 acceptance additions | Covered (new) | ### Missing Requirements - No uncovered FRs found. - Traceability note: the epics FR coverage map block currently lists FR1-FR34 only; FR35-FR36 are implemented in stories but should be added to the formal mapping section for consistency. ### Coverage Statistics - Total PRD FRs: 36 - FRs covered in epics/stories: 36 - Coverage percentage: 100% ## Step 4 - UX Alignment Assessment ### UX Document Status - Found: `_bmad-output/planning-artifacts/ux-design-specification.md` ### Alignment Issues - FR35/FR36 are now represented in UX addendum flows, but the original UX body still assumes pre-import workflow; import/reconciliation is currently captured as addendum rather than integrated into core journey sections. ### Confirmed Alignments - PRD deterministic reporting and traceability goals align with UX components (`DispatchRunBuilder`, `ProvenanceTimelinePanel`) and architecture parity/reconciliation controls. - Performance-sensitive dense operations model is consistently reflected across PRD, UX, and architecture. - New source integration is aligned across all three artifacts via approved addendums (import workflow, provenance, reconciliation queue). ### Warnings - Low warning: merge addendum updates into base UX journey sections in a future documentation cleanup pass for clarity. ## Step 5 - Epic Quality Review ### Epic Structure Validation - User-value orientation: Pass - Epics are framed around coordinator, production, transportation, support, and admin outcomes. - Epic independence: Pass with minor concerns - Sequence is generally valid (Epic 1 foundation, then operational workflows). - No blocking dependency found where an epic requires a future epic to be functional. ### Story Quality Assessment - Story sizing: Generally appropriate for implementation units. - Acceptance criteria quality: Mostly strong BDD-style `Given/When/Then` with testable outcomes. - Dependency direction: No hard forward dependencies detected; reused components mostly reference prior stories. ### Special Implementation Checks - Starter template requirement: Pass - Epic 1 Story 1.1 includes explicit scaffold and starter commands. - Brownfield indicators: Pass - Legacy immutability, compatibility checks, and identifier-linking stories are present. ### Findings by Severity #### Critical - None found. #### Major - None found. #### Minor - Documentation cohesion: - Newly added source-integration changes are captured, but some are in addendum-style sections rather than integrated into original epic narrative blocks. - Recommendation: fold addendum content into base sections during next documentation maintenance pass. ### Best-Practices Compliance Checklist - [x] Epic delivers user value - [x] Epic can function independently - [x] Stories appropriately sized - [x] No forward dependencies that block delivery - [x] Data model creation aligned to need timing - [x] Clear acceptance criteria - [x] Traceability to FRs maintained ## Summary and Recommendations ### Overall Readiness Status READY ### Critical Issues Requiring Immediate Action - No critical or major blockers remain. ### Recommended Next Steps 1. Keep Story 2.6 and Story 6.8 implementation near the front of backlog execution to reduce source-data risk early. 2. Integrate addendum details back into base UX narrative sections during routine documentation maintenance. 3. Proceed to sprint planning/implementation sequencing. ### Final Note This assessment identified no remaining critical or major issues after approved corrections, with one minor documentation-cohesion recommendation. Assessor: Codex (AI pair agent) Assessment Date: 2026-05-05