fxdemo:01-part:10-conceptual-traceability-model:10-7-bidirectional-review-and-impact-analysis

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
fxdemo:01-part:10-conceptual-traceability-model:10-7-bidirectional-review-and-impact-analysis [2026/06/29 14:31] – removed - external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1fxdemo:01-part:10-conceptual-traceability-model:10-7-bidirectional-review-and-impact-analysis [2026/08/04 07:09] (current) – ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation nick_dido
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== 10.7 Bidirectional Review and Impact Analysis ======
 +[[fxdemo:01-part:start | Go to Top ]]
 +
 +[[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:t:traceability|Traceability]] supports review in two directions.
 +
 +Forward [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:t:traceability|Traceability]] starts with a conceptual concern and follows it outward through logical design, implementation mapping, deployment, and [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:e:evidence|Evidence]]. It helps reviewers confirm that the system implements and evidences the intended architecture.
 +
 +Backward [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:t:traceability|Traceability]] starts with [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:e:evidence|Evidence]], deployment artifacts, implementation artifacts, or logical elements and traces back to the conceptual concern they support. It helps reviewers determine why an artifact exists and which architectural claim it supports.
 +
 +Bidirectional [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:t:traceability|Traceability]] supports impact analysis. When a concept changes, reviewers can identify affected logical elements, implementation artifacts, deployment artifacts, and [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:e:evidence|Evidence]] packages. When an implementation artifact changes, reviewers can identify the logical and conceptual elements at risk. When [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:e:evidence|Evidence]] is lacking, reviewers can identify the claim, deployment artifact, implementation artifact, and logical element that require review.
 +
 +Examples of impact-analysis questions include:
 +
 +  * Which implementation artifacts realize this logical [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:c:communication_endpoint|Communication Endpoint]]?
 +  * Which deployed [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:f:financial_node|Node]]s use this [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:d:data_structure_definition|Data Structure Definition]]?
 +  * Which [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:e:evidence|Evidence]] items support this release-control claim?
 +  * Which tests exercise this [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:r:runtime_plane|Runtime Plane]]?
 +  * Which profiles inherit this [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:c:classification_path|Classification Path]]?
 +  * Which artifacts require review if a [[dido:99_annexes:annex-b-terms-and-definitions:c:communication_endpoint|Communication Endpoint]] changes?
 +
 +
 +----
 +
 +<WRAP centeralign>
 +
 +© 2026 Dido Solutions, Inc. and Jackrabbit Consulting, Inc.
 +
 +</WRAP>
 +