<!-- markdownlint-disable -->
# Implementation Plan Quality Validation Checklist

**Purpose**: Validate quality, completeness, and clarity of implementation plan and supporting documentation
**Created**: 2026-01-27
**Scope**: Comprehensive review across functional, security, network, and monitoring requirements
**Depth**: Standard (~40 items)
**Feature**: [spec.md](../spec.md) | [plan.md](../plan.md)

---

## Requirement Completeness

Requirements documentation coverage and thoroughness.

- [ ] CHK001 - Are VM compute requirements (CPU, memory, disk) explicitly specified with exact values? [Completeness, Spec §FR-001]
- [ ] CHK002 - Are all three network subnet ranges defined with CIDR notation and purpose documented? [Completeness, Spec §FR-003]
- [ ] CHK003 - Are storage account requirements specified for both file share quota and performance tier? [Completeness, Spec §FR-005]
- [ ] CHK004 - Are availability zone requirements documented with explicit valid range (1-3, never -1)? [Completeness, Spec §FR-014]
- [ ] CHK005 - Are diagnostic logging requirements defined for all resource types requiring monitoring? [Completeness, Spec §SEC-001]
- [ ] CHK006 - Are all 12 AVM modules documented with exact version numbers and purpose statements? [Completeness, Plan §Technical Context]
- [ ] CHK007 - Are deployment sequence phases defined with resource dependencies explicitly stated? [Completeness, Data-Model §Deployment Sequence]
- [ ] CHK008 - Are NSG security rules specified for all three subnets with protocol, port, and direction details? [Completeness, Data-Model §NSG Configuration]

## Requirement Clarity

Specificity and measurability of requirements to eliminate ambiguity.

- [ ] CHK009 - Is "Standard HDD" quantified with specific Azure SKU names (e.g., StandardSSD_LRS)? [Clarity, Spec §FR-001, FR-002]
- [ ] CHK010 - Is "minimal naming" defined with exact pattern format and character count range? [Clarity, Constitution §V, Plan §Technical Context]
- [ ] CHK011 - Are alert thresholds specified with exact percentage values and evaluation windows? [Clarity, Spec §MON-004, Data-Model §Alert Configuration]
- [ ] CHK012 - Is "secure remote access" quantified with specific protocol (RDP), port, and authentication method? [Clarity, Spec §FR-004]
- [ ] CHK013 - Are "least-privilege NSG rules" defined with concrete allow/deny examples per subnet? [Clarity, Spec §SEC-003]
- [ ] CHK014 - Is "deployment within 20 minutes" defined as a measurable success criterion with verification method? [Measurability, Spec §SC-001]
- [ ] CHK015 - Is password generation approach explicitly defined with uniqueString() seed sources documented? [Clarity, Research §Password Generation]
- [ ] CHK016 - Are resource name length constraints specified with Azure limits (e.g., Storage 24 chars, VM NetBIOS 15 chars)? [Clarity, Spec §FR-010, Data-Model §Resource Names]

## Requirement Consistency

Alignment and non-contradiction across specification, plan, and supporting documents.

- [ ] CHK017 - Do VM sizing requirements in spec match the data model configuration (Standard_D2s_v3 consistently specified)? [Consistency, Spec §FR-001, Data-Model §VM Config]
- [ ] CHK018 - Do network CIDR blocks in spec align with data model subnet allocations (10.0.0.0/24 breakdown)? [Consistency, Spec §FR-003, Data-Model §Network Topology]
- [ ] CHK019 - Do AVM module versions in plan match research document module selections (all 12 modules)? [Consistency, Plan §AVM Modules, Research §Module Inventory]
- [ ] CHK020 - Do alert requirements in spec match alert configuration in data model (3 critical alerts)? [Consistency, Spec §MON-003-005, Data-Model §Alerts]
- [ ] CHK021 - Do diagnostic logging requirements align across SEC-001 (spec) and technical context (plan)? [Consistency, Spec §SEC-001, Plan §Security Baseline]
- [ ] CHK022 - Does naming convention in constitution match implementation in data model? [Consistency, Constitution §V, Data-Model §Naming Model]
- [ ] CHK023 - Do deployment phases in plan align with dependency graph in data model? [Consistency, Plan §Phase 3, Data-Model §Deployment Sequence]

## Acceptance Criteria Quality

Measurability and testability of success criteria.

- [ ] CHK024 - Are all 11 success criteria (SC-001 to SC-011) objectively measurable with pass/fail conditions? [Measurability, Spec §Success Criteria]
- [ ] CHK025 - Can VM accessibility (SC-004) be verified through documented test procedure in quickstart? [Testability, Spec §SC-004, Quickstart §4.2]
- [ ] CHK026 - Can NSG rule effectiveness (SC-009) be validated with concrete test scenarios? [Testability, Spec §SC-009]
- [ ] CHK027 - Can Log Analytics ingestion (SC-007) be verified within specified 5-minute timeframe? [Measurability, Spec §SC-007]
- [ ] CHK028 - Are constitution compliance gates (all 6 principles) verifiable with documented evidence? [Measurability, Plan §Constitution Check]

## Scenario Coverage

Completeness of primary, alternate, error, recovery, and non-functional scenarios.

- [ ] CHK029 - Are all five user stories independently testable as documented in spec? [Coverage, Primary Flows, Spec §User Scenarios]
- [ ] CHK030 - Are VM computer name length violations (>15 chars) addressed with edge case handling? [Coverage, Edge Case, Spec §Edge Cases]
- [ ] CHK031 - Are storage account naming violations (>24 chars, invalid chars) documented as edge cases? [Coverage, Edge Case, Spec §Edge Cases]
- [ ] CHK032 - Are private endpoint deployment failures with successful storage account handled? [Coverage, Exception Flow, Spec §Edge Cases]
- [ ] CHK033 - Are Key Vault secret access failures monitored with alert configuration? [Coverage, Exception Flow, Spec §MON-005]
- [ ] CHK034 - Are availability zone validation requirements (1-3 only, never -1) enforced? [Coverage, Edge Case, Spec §FR-014]
- [ ] CHK035 - Are performance requirements addressed for standard HDD selection rationale? [Coverage, Non-Functional, Research §Storage Module]

## Edge Case Coverage

Boundary conditions, error states, and exceptional scenarios.

- [ ] CHK036 - Are requirements defined for zero-subnet scenarios or invalid CIDR blocks? [Gap, Edge Case]
- [ ] CHK037 - Are rollback requirements defined if VM deployment succeeds but Key Vault secret creation fails? [Gap, Recovery Flow]
- [ ] CHK038 - Are concurrent deployment conflict scenarios (multiple simultaneous deployments) addressed? [Gap, Edge Case]
- [ ] CHK039 - Are requirements specified for when Log Analytics workspace is unavailable during resource deployment? [Gap, Exception Flow]

## Dependencies & Assumptions

External dependencies, prerequisites, and assumption documentation.

- [ ] CHK040 - Are all Azure resource provider registration requirements documented as prerequisites? [Dependency, Quickstart §Prerequisites]
- [ ] CHK041 - Are subscription quota requirements validated as documented assumptions? [Assumption, Spec §Assumptions]
- [ ] CHK042 - Are tool version requirements (Bicep 0.33.0+, Azure CLI 2.65.0+) specified with verification commands? [Dependency, Plan §Technical Context, Quickstart §Prerequisites]
- [ ] CHK043 - Are required Azure permissions documented with specific role names? [Dependency, Quickstart §Prerequisites]
- [ ] CHK044 - Is the assumption about Windows Server 2016 image availability in westus3 validated? [Assumption, Spec §Assumptions]

## Traceability

Linkage between requirements, specifications, and implementation artifacts.

- [ ] CHK045 - Do all functional requirements (FR-001 to FR-016) have corresponding implementation guidance in plan phases? [Traceability]
- [ ] CHK046 - Do all security requirements (SEC-001 to SEC-008) map to specific AVM module configurations in research? [Traceability]
- [ ] CHK047 - Do all monitoring requirements (MON-001 to MON-005) trace to alert definitions in data model? [Traceability]
- [ ] CHK048 - Do all infrastructure constraints (IC-001 to IC-006) align with constitution principles? [Traceability]

## Ambiguities & Conflicts

Identification of unclear, contradictory, or incomplete requirement areas.

- [ ] CHK049 - Is "HDD-backed file share" disambiguated between Standard_LRS vs other HDD SKUs? [Ambiguity, Spec §FR-005]
- [ ] CHK050 - Is "Portal notifications only" for alerts clearly documented as excluding Action Groups? [Clarity, Spec §MON-003]
- [ ] CHK051 - Is the deployment timeframe "within 20 minutes" inclusive of validation steps or deployment only? [Ambiguity, Spec §SC-001]
- [ ] CHK052 - Are "rich comments" requirements quantified with minimum comment density or coverage percentage? [Ambiguity, Spec §FR-015]

---

## Validation Summary

**Total Items**: 52
**Pass Threshold**: ≥90% (47+ items checked)
**Review Date**: _________________
**Reviewer**: _________________
**Status**: ☐ PASSED  |  ☐ NEEDS REVISION  |  ☐ BLOCKED

### Issues Identified

_Document any requirement quality issues discovered during validation:_

1.
2.
3.

### Recommendations

_Suggested improvements for requirement clarity, completeness, or testability:_

1.
2.
3.

---

**Next Steps**:
- If PASSED → Proceed to Phase 2 implementation (Bicep template creation)
- If NEEDS REVISION → Address identified issues, re-validate
- If BLOCKED → Escalate missing information to stakeholders
