11
34
90
26
15/48
6/11
Three-level hierarchy (Epic → Feature → User Story) with no orphans. 11 epics span the release; distribution is uneven but coherent.
| Epic | Title | Features | Stories | Q | SM churn | Spikes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPIC-015 | Airline Tenant Configuration | 2 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| EPIC-001 | Airline Knowledge Foundation & KB Agent | 2 | 16 | 1 | 13 | 0 | high SM churn |
| EPIC-002 | Process Map Authoring, Repository & Governance Updated by SM | 5 | 21 | 13 | 18 | 3 | high SM churn |
| EPIC-003 | AS-IS to TO-BE Process Design & Change Impact | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
| EPIC-006 | Connected SDLC Pipeline & Artefact Traceability | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| EPIC-004 | Requirements & Use Case Intelligence | 5 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| EPIC-007 | ALM Tool Interoperability (Jira / Excel) | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| EPIC-009 | Migration Assurance – PNR, Ticket & EMD to Order | 2 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| EPIC-010 | Test Repository Management & Traceability | 7 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| EPIC-012 | Integrated Quality & Migration Insights Dashboard | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| EPIC-013 | PMO Agent – Planning, Tracking & Governance | 3 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
Q = open questions logged · SM churn = rows marked "Added/Updated by SM" · Spikes = technical spike stories. Largest epics: EPIC-002 (21 stories), EPIC-001 (16), EPIC-010 (14).
Fill rate per level (non-empty, excluding "NA"). Green = 100%, amber = partial, red = poor. Business Value / Indicators / Scope are intentionally populated only at Epic+Feature level (stories inherit).
| Field | Epic (11) | Feature (34) | Story (90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Description | 11/11100% | 34/34100% | 90/90100% |
| Business Value | 11/11100% | 34/34100% | 0/900% |
| Leading Indicators | 11/11100% | 34/34100% | 0/900% |
| In / Out of Scope | 11/11100% | 34/34100% | 0/900% |
| Acceptance Criteria | 11/11100% | 33/3497% | 64/9071% |
| Dependencies | 11/11100% | 33/3497% | 5/906% |
| NFRs | 11/11100% | 33/3497% | 0/900% |
| Source Gap # | 0/110% | 15/3444% | 31/9034% |
| Questions | 0/110% | 2/346% | 20/9022% |
| Figma required | 0/110% | 0/340% | 17/9019% |
| Risks / Dependencies | 0/110% | 0/340% | 7/908% |
| Story Points | 0/110% | 0/340% | 1/901% |
| Needs further split | 0/110% | 0/340% | 0/900% |
| Assignee | 0/110% | 0/340% | 0/900% |
Does the release cover the documented gaps, and is the internal structure consistent?
FEAT-06-01 → US-06-01-01; FEAT-06-02 "Usecase-level SDLC trigger" → US-06-01-02 (wrong prefix); a second FEAT-06-02 "SDLC artefact repository" → US-06-02-01.
Cross-referenced with the effort-estimates sheet (dev / QA / total weeks). "Spec-ready" = % of stories with acceptance criteria (not counting spikes).
| Epic | Team | Feat | Stories | Dev | QA | Total | Density | Spec-ready | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPIC-015 | Anand & Team | 2 | 6 | — | — | — | — | 50% | no estimate |
| EPIC-001 | Engineering POD (P) | 2 | 16 | 3 Wks | 1 Wk | 4 Wks | 4.0/wk | 31% | — |
| EPIC-002 | Engineering POD (P) | 5 | 21 | 2 Wks | 1 Wk | 3 Wks | 7.0/wk | 62% | high density |
| EPIC-003 | Engineering POD (P) | 2 | 3 | 2 Wks | 1 Wk | 3 Wks | 1.0/wk | 67% | partial scope |
| EPIC-006 | Engineering POD (P) | 3 | 4 | 1 wks | 1 Wk | 2 wks | 2.0/wk | 100% | partial scope |
| EPIC-004 | Anand & Team | 5 | 11 | — | — | — | — | 100% | no estimate |
| EPIC-007 | — | 2 | 2 | — | — | — | — | 100% | no estimate no team |
| EPIC-009 | Anand & Team | 2 | 4 | — | — | — | — | 75% | no estimate |
| EPIC-010 | BlueSwan | 7 | 14 | — | — | — | — | 100% | no estimate |
| EPIC-012 | BlueSwan | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | 100% | no estimate |
| EPIC-013 | Engineering POD (P2) | 3 | 8 | 3 Wks | 1 Wk | 4 Wks | 2.0/wk | 75% | partial scope |
| Dependency | Type | Owner | Mentions | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jira | ALM / planning tool | Vendor licence | 23 | dependency for EPIC-007/010/013; open question on Pro licence for >3 hierarchy |
| Verita dashboard | Quality dashboard | Internal | 3 | embed + SSO required (EPIC-012) |
| SBSM Readiness Agent | Business readiness | Internal | 1 | not in Dec release per SM note (EPIC-002/003) |
| PSS / Amadeus Nevio | Airline systems | Vendor | 10 | PNR/EMD/Order feeds + ontology (EPIC-001/009) |
| Confluence | Document source | Vendor | 11 | ingestion + process extraction |
| SharePoint | Document source | Vendor | 5 | ingestion connector |
| Secrets vault | Credential store | Internal | 1 | required by all connectors |
| Visio / Excel | BPM & office tools | Vendor | 27 | process-map import/export (EPIC-002) |
| AWS / K8s / Elastic Beanstalk | Deployment target | Undecided | 1 | open in US-15-01-03 |
| GitHub / Azure DevOps | CI/CD | Internal | 2 | referenced in deployment spike |
| Concern | Mentions | Observation |
|---|---|---|
| RBAC / role-based access | 16 | Central; FEAT-015-02 thin (no AC/NFR/deps) |
| Audit trail | 28 | Widely referenced but rarely specified with retention |
| Credentials / secrets / vault | 14 | Connectors depend on a vault not yet an epic |
| SSO / single sign-on | 9 | Required for Verita embed (EPIC-012) |
| Encryption at rest / in transit | 5 | Under-specified for PNR/EMD passenger data |
| PII / GDPR | 4 | Only 4 rows mention PII/GDPR — too thin for airline data |
| Tenant isolation | 3 | On-prem per-airline model (not SaaS) still open in EPIC-015 |
Consolidated, prioritised list of gaps to close before the release is development-ready.
| Ref | Issue | Level | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-1 | Planning fields effectively empty Story Points (1/135, a note not a number), Assignee (0/135), Needs-further-split (0/135), Developer's Understanding (1/135), Risks/Dependencies (7/135) are all blank. | All levels | Critical | Backfill estimates, owners and split triage before sprint planning; treat as release blocker. |
| C-2 | 26 stories lack acceptance criteria 29% of user stories (26/90) have no Acceptance Criteria, concentrated in EPIC-001 (KB stories added by SM) and EPIC-002 technical spikes. | Stories | High | Write AC for all 26; spikes may carry a lighter 'definition of done' but must be explicit. |
| C-3 | FEAT-015-02 (RBAC) is thin Missing Acceptance Criteria, Dependencies and NFRs — the only feature with all three blank. | Feature | High | Complete RBAC spec: AC, dependency on tenant config, security NFRs. |
| C-4 | NFRs absent at story level NFRs are defined only at epic/feature (0/90 stories). Acceptable as inheritance convention, but no per-story performance/security constraints are surfaced. | Stories | Medium | Confirm inheritance convention is documented; add story-level NFRs where they diverge. |
| M-1 | Gap→requirement traceability is partial Only 15 of 48 gaps are referenced. Epics never carry the gap number (0/11). 11 epics and 19 features have no source-gap mapping. | Epics/Features | High | Complete Source Gap # for EPIC-006/007/009/010/012/015 and their features to prove requirement coverage. |
| M-2 | Duplicate IDs Duplicate identifiers: FEAT-06-02 (x2), US-01-02-02 (x2), US-06-01-02 (x2). FEAT-06-02 is used by two different features. | Mixed | High | De-duplicate: renumber one FEAT-06-02 and the duplicate stories; drop/merge the 'not required' US-01-02-02. |
| M-3 | ID/hierarchy misalignment in EPIC-006 FEAT-06-02 'Usecase-level SDLC trigger' contains US-06-01-02 (should be US-06-02-xx); a second FEAT-06-02 'SDLC artefact repository' holds US-06-02-01. | Features/Stories | Medium | Realign story IDs to their parent feature; verify feature numbering. |
| R-1 | PMO Agent scope contested SM states the agent should consume Jira plans, not build plans from the backlog. FEAT-013-01 and US-013-03-04 are marked 'not intended capability'. | EPIC-013 | Critical | Reconcile EPIC-013 scope with SM before committing Dec 15 work; de-scope or rewrite FEAT-013-01. |
| R-2 | Missing ontology pre-requisite HN notes the base airline ontology (PNR/EMD, OOSD, PSS) is a missing pre-requisite and needs its own Epic; C4/EA diagram ingestion is not covered. | EPIC-001 | Critical | Add an ontology Epic; confirm ingestion of C4/EA artefacts. |
| R-3 | Requirements still in flux 45 rows (33%) carry 'Added/Updated by SM' markers; 22 rows have open questions; 7 technical spikes are unresolved. | All levels | High | Close out open questions and spikes; freeze requirements to stabilise the release. |
| R-4 | UI design dependency 15 stories require Figma design (mostly EPIC-002 process maps and EPIC-009 PNR dashboard). | Stories | Medium | Sequence UX design ahead of those stories; confirm design capacity. |
| R-5 | Deprioritised but present FEAT-02-03 '(depriortised)' is still in the release spec with 2 stories. | Feature | Low | Either remove from the Dec 15 scope or confirm it is in. |
| E-1 | No effort estimate for 6 of 11 epics EPIC-015/004/007/009/010/012 have no dev/QA/total estimate, covering 38 stories (42% of all stories). Existing estimates cover only 1 feature in EPIC-003/006/013. | Epics | Critical | Produce estimates for all epics before any Dec 15 commitment; schedule is currently uncomputable. |
| E-2 | EPIC-007 unassigned & unclear EPIC-007 (ALM interoperability) has no team and 'Clarification Needed'; EPIC-010/012 (BlueSwan) carry the largest test-repo scope with no estimate. | Epic | High | Assign owners and clarify EPIC-007 scope; size EPIC-010 (14 stories). |
| E-3 | Likely under-estimated epics EPIC-002 = 21 stories / 3 wks (~7.0/wk); EPIC-001 = 16 stories / 4 wks. Density suggests the estimates are optimistic for the story counts. | Epics | High | Re-sanity-check effort vs. story count; consider t-shirt sizing + PERT. |
| E-4 | Definition-of-ready ~0% plan-ready 0 stories have Story Points and 0 have Assignee, so no story is sprint-ready. Spec-readiness (AC present) is ~71%. | Stories | Critical | Run DoR grooming; block any sprint that includes non-ready stories. |
| D-1 | Dangling dependency EPIC-014 EPIC-012 and EPIC-015 depend on 'EPIC-014' (Platform RBAC) which does not exist in the sheet; RBAC is delivered as FEAT-015-02 instead. | Epics | High | Re-point RBAC references to FEAT-015-02 / create EPIC-014 explicitly. |
| D-2 | Stale dependency numbering 20 rows reference IDs not present in the sheet, mostly an old FEAT-XXX scheme (12 distinct stale feature refs incl. FEAT-006 referenced 6×). Automated dependency tracing would break. | Features | High | Reconcile all dependency IDs to the current FEAT-XX-YY scheme. |
| D-3 | Security under-specified for airline data Data-security gap (#48) is unmapped; PII appears in only 3 rows and GDPR in 1, despite PNR/EMD passenger data. | All levels | High | Add a security/data-protection epic or explicitly map gap #48; specify encryption, residency, retention. |
| D-4 | Deployment architecture undecided SaaS vs on-prem (PB: 'not SaaS, per-airline env') vs 'airline tenant configuration' unresolved; deployment target (AWS Beanstalk vs Kubernetes) open in US-15-01-03. | Epics | Medium | Confirm architecture and deployment target; align EPIC-015 wording. |
| D-5 | Heavy external/vendor dependency 10 external systems (Jira 23 rows, Verita, SBSM, PSS, Confluence/SharePoint, secrets vault). Several are third-party with no SLA/availability or fallback defined. | All levels | Medium | Build a dependency register with owners, contracts and fallback behaviour. |
Generated from aeronova-reqs.sqlite · dec_15_release_for_developers (135 rows) + effort_estimates · 135 rows