generated from coulomb/repo-seed
88 lines
3.2 KiB
YAML
88 lines
3.2 KiB
YAML
id: review-kit/alignment/scorecard
|
|
title: Canon Consumer Alignment Scorecard
|
|
status: candidate
|
|
created_by_workplan: ITC-WP-0011
|
|
rating_scale:
|
|
- id: "0"
|
|
label: absent
|
|
meaning: No useful evidence or mapping exists.
|
|
- id: "1"
|
|
label: weak
|
|
meaning: Early or ambiguous evidence exists but cannot guide implementation safely.
|
|
- id: "2"
|
|
label: partial
|
|
meaning: Useful alignment exists, with gaps or caveats that need work.
|
|
- id: "3"
|
|
label: strong
|
|
meaning: The repository maps cleanly enough for practical use.
|
|
- id: "4"
|
|
label: canonical
|
|
meaning: The repository can act as an exemplar, reusable pattern, or benchmark input.
|
|
dimensions:
|
|
- id: fit
|
|
title: Canon Fit
|
|
question: How well does the repository map to selected canon models, standards, profiles, and benchmarks?
|
|
evidence_required:
|
|
- direct mappings
|
|
- partial mappings
|
|
- unmapped native concepts
|
|
- id: gaps
|
|
title: Alignment Gaps
|
|
question: Which missing artifacts, schemas, tests, relationships, decisions, or concepts block reliable canon use?
|
|
evidence_required:
|
|
- missing surfaces
|
|
- missing validation
|
|
- missing governance or evidence
|
|
- id: conflicts
|
|
title: Semantic Conflicts
|
|
question: Which repository terms or structures conflict with canon meaning or risk flattening distinct concepts?
|
|
evidence_required:
|
|
- conflicting names
|
|
- overloaded scopes
|
|
- native terms with non-canonical meanings
|
|
- id: evidence-quality
|
|
title: Evidence Quality
|
|
question: How strong, current, and source-linked is the evidence behind each mapping or claim?
|
|
evidence_required:
|
|
- source files
|
|
- tests
|
|
- generated outputs
|
|
- review decisions
|
|
- id: implementation-priority
|
|
title: Implementation Priority
|
|
question: Which alignment work should be done first to increase practical utility?
|
|
evidence_required:
|
|
- consumer need
|
|
- blast radius
|
|
- implementation cost
|
|
- risk reduction
|
|
- id: canon-pressure
|
|
title: Canon Pressure
|
|
question: Which findings suggest the canon itself should learn, extend, or clarify something?
|
|
evidence_required:
|
|
- repeated gaps
|
|
- useful new concepts
|
|
- profile or schema pressure
|
|
- unresolved standard boundaries
|
|
- id: workplan-readiness
|
|
title: Consumer Workplan Readiness
|
|
question: Are the proposed repo-local tasks clear, scoped, testable, and anchored in evidence?
|
|
evidence_required:
|
|
- task list
|
|
- acceptance criteria
|
|
- validation path
|
|
- ownership boundary
|
|
decision_bands:
|
|
- id: ready-to-adopt
|
|
rule: Most dimensions are strong or canonical, and workplan readiness is strong.
|
|
action: Create consumer-repo adoption workplan and track residual gaps.
|
|
- id: ready-to-improve
|
|
rule: Fit is partial or strong, but gaps, conflicts, or evidence quality need work.
|
|
action: Create consumer-repo improvement workplan.
|
|
- id: needs-discovery
|
|
rule: Fit, evidence quality, or surface selection is weak.
|
|
action: Create discovery or assessment workplan before implementation.
|
|
- id: canon-feedback-needed
|
|
rule: Canon pressure is high or repeated across reviews.
|
|
action: Create or propose a canon workplan instead of changing standards inline.
|