aiwg
Version:
Deployment tool and support utility for AI context. Copies agents, skills, commands, rules, and behaviors into the paths each AI platform reads (Claude Code, Codex, Copilot, Cursor, Warp, OpenClaw, and 6 more) so one source of truth works across 10 platfo
485 lines (325 loc) • 25 kB
Markdown
# Contract Requirements Traceability Matrix
## Cover Page
- `Project Name`
- `Contract-Requirements Traceability Matrix`
- `Version 1.0`
## Revision History
| Date | Version | Description | Author |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| `dd/mmm/yy` | `x.x` | `<details>` | `<name>` |
## Ownership & Collaboration
- Document Owner: Legal Liaison
- Contributor Roles: System Analyst, Project Manager, Domain Expert, Traceability Manager
- Automation Inputs: Contract repository, requirements database, metadata extraction tools
- Automation Outputs: Traceability graphs, gap analysis reports, compliance verification dashboards
## 1 Introduction
> Establish bidirectional traceability between contractual obligations and system requirements to ensure all commitments are implemented and verified.
### 1.1 Purpose
This matrix maps contract clauses to requirements, design decisions, implementation artifacts, and verification methods, providing audit evidence that all contractual commitments are fulfilled.
### 1.2 Scope
This document covers:
- Customer contract obligations (SLAs, features, milestones, compliance)
- Vendor contract dependencies (SLAs, services, compliance)
- Traceability from contract → requirement → design → implementation → test → verification
- Gap identification (contractual obligations without implementation)
- Compliance verification (evidence that obligations are met)
### 1.3 Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
- **Traceability**: Linkage between contract clause, requirement, design, implementation, and verification
- **Contract Obligation**: Commitment in contract (SLA, deliverable, compliance certification)
- **Requirement ID**: Unique identifier for system requirement (SR-, FR-, NFR- prefix)
- **Verification Method**: How obligation fulfillment is verified (test, audit, monitoring)
- **Gap**: Contract obligation without corresponding requirement or implementation
### 1.4 References
- `contract-management-template.md` - Contract inventory and obligations
- `supplementary-spec-template.md` - Non-functional requirements
- `srs-traditional-template.md` - Functional requirements
- `architecture-notebook-template.md` - Design decisions
- `test-plan-template.md` - Verification and validation
- `sli-card.md` - SLA metric tracking
### 1.5 Overview
Section 2 establishes traceability framework; Section 3 maps customer contract obligations; Section 4 maps vendor contract dependencies; Section 5 provides traceability verification; Section 6 identifies gaps.
## 2 Traceability Framework
> Define traceability structure, ID conventions, and relationship types.
### 2.1 Traceability Levels
**Five-Level Traceability Chain**:
1. **Contract Clause** → Specific section of contract (customer SOW, vendor MSA)
2. **System Requirement** → Derived requirement (SR-xxx, FR-xxx, NFR-xxx)
3. **Design Decision** → Architecture choice, component design
4. **Implementation Artifact** → Code module, configuration, infrastructure
5. **Verification Method** → Test case, monitoring metric, audit procedure
**Bidirectional Traceability**:
- **Forward**: Contract clause → Requirement → Design → Implementation → Verification
- **Backward**: Verification → Implementation → Design → Requirement → Contract clause
### 2.2 ID Prefix Conventions
| Prefix | Entity Type | Example |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **CONT-** | Contract ID | CONT-2024-001 (Acme Corp SOW) |
| **CL-** | Contract Clause | CL-CONT-2024-001-3.2 (SOW Section 3.2) |
| **SR-** | Stakeholder Requirement | SR-001 (High-level business need) |
| **FR-** | Functional Requirement | FR-012 (Specific feature) |
| **NFR-** | Non-Functional Requirement | NFR-005 (Performance, security, compliance) |
| **UC-** | Use Case | UC-003 (User interaction flow) |
| **ARCH-** | Architecture Decision | ARCH-007 (Design choice) |
| **COMP-** | Component | COMP-API-001 (Code module) |
| **TEST-** | Test Case | TEST-012 (Verification test) |
| **SLI-** | Service Level Indicator | SLI-001 (Monitoring metric) |
| **VER-** | Verification Record | VER-2024-Q3-001 (Evidence of compliance) |
**Relationship Notation**: `CL-CONT-2024-001-3.2 → SR-001 → NFR-005 → ARCH-007 → COMP-API-001 → TEST-012 → VER-2024-Q3-001`
### 2.3 Traceability Metadata
**Each Traceability Link Must Capture**:
- **Source ID**: Contract clause ID
- **Target ID**: Requirement, design, implementation, or verification ID
- **Relationship Type**: Derives, Implements, Verifies, Depends
- **Description**: Brief explanation of relationship
- **Owner**: Stakeholder responsible for fulfillment
- **Status**: Planned / In Progress / Complete / Verified
- **Verification Evidence**: Link to test result, audit report, monitoring dashboard
## 3 Customer Contract Obligations Traceability
> Map customer contractual commitments to implementation and verification.
### 3.1 Service Level Agreement (SLA) Traceability
#### 3.1.1 Availability SLA
**Contract Clause**: CL-CONT-2024-001-4.1 (Acme Corp SOW Section 4.1)
**Obligation**: "Vendor shall provide 99.95% monthly uptime, measured as percentage of time Service is available during calendar month, excluding scheduled maintenance windows."
**Traceability Chain**:
| Contract Clause | System Requirement | Design Decision | Implementation Artifact | Verification Method | Status | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-4.1 | NFR-001: System uptime ≥ 99.95% | ARCH-001: Multi-AZ deployment with automated failover | COMP-INFRA-001: AWS Auto Scaling Group across 3 AZs | SLI-001: Uptime monitoring (Datadog) | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-001: 99.97% uptime (Sept 2024) |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-4.1 | NFR-002: Scheduled maintenance < 4 hours/month | ARCH-002: Blue-green deployment for zero-downtime updates | COMP-DEPLOY-001: CI/CD pipeline with canary rollouts | TEST-012: Deployment test (no downtime) | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-002: Zero downtime in 12 deployments (Q3) |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-4.1 | NFR-003: Monitoring and alerting | ARCH-003: Real-time health checks every 30 seconds | COMP-MON-001: Datadog synthetic monitoring | SLI-002: Alert response time < 5 min | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-003: Avg alert response 3 min (Q3) |
**Penalty Clause**: 10% service credit per 0.1% below 99.95%
**Financial Impact**: If uptime falls to 99.85%, credit = ~$5K
**Mitigation**: Multi-AZ architecture reduces single point of failure risk
#### 3.1.2 Performance SLA
**Contract Clause**: CL-CONT-2024-001-4.2 (Acme Corp SOW Section 4.2)
**Obligation**: "API response time shall be < 200ms at 95th percentile, measured monthly."
**Traceability Chain**:
| Contract Clause | System Requirement | Design Decision | Implementation Artifact | Verification Method | Status | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-4.2 | NFR-004: API response time < 200ms (p95) | ARCH-004: Redis caching layer for frequently accessed data | COMP-CACHE-001: Redis cluster with read replicas | SLI-003: API response time (p95) via APM | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-004: 185ms p95 (Sept 2024) |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-4.2 | NFR-005: Database query optimization | ARCH-005: Database indexing strategy, query tuning | COMP-DB-001: Optimized database schema with indexes | TEST-013: Load testing (< 200ms under load) | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-005: 190ms p95 at 10K RPS |
**Penalty Clause**: 5% service credit if > 200ms
#### 3.1.3 Support SLA
**Contract Clause**: CL-CONT-2024-001-4.3 (Acme Corp SOW Section 4.3)
**Obligation**: "P1 incidents: 1 hour response, 4 hours resolution. P2 incidents: 4 hours response, 24 hours resolution."
**Traceability Chain**:
| Contract Clause | System Requirement | Design Decision | Implementation Artifact | Verification Method | Status | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-4.3 | NFR-006: P1 response < 1 hour | ARCH-006: 24/7 on-call rotation | COMP-ONCALL-001: PagerDuty on-call schedule | SLI-004: Incident response time tracking | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-006: Avg P1 response 45 min (Q3) |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-4.3 | NFR-007: P1 resolution < 4 hours | ARCH-007: Incident response runbooks, automated remediation | COMP-IR-001: Runbooks in Confluence, automation scripts | SLI-005: Incident resolution time tracking | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-007: Avg P1 resolution 3.5 hr (Q3) |
### 3.2 Feature Deliverable Traceability
**Contract Clause**: CL-CONT-2024-001-2.1 (Acme Corp SOW Section 2.1)
**Obligation**: "Vendor shall deliver Feature X (predictive analytics dashboard) by December 1, 2025."
**Traceability Chain**:
| Contract Clause | System Requirement | Design Decision | Implementation Artifact | Verification Method | Status | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-2.1 | SR-010: Predictive analytics capability | UC-005: User views predictive analytics dashboard | FR-050: Dashboard UI with charts | COMP-UI-010: React dashboard component | TEST-020: UAT with customer | Planned (Q4 2025) | N/A (not yet delivered) |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-2.1 | SR-011: Machine learning model training | ARCH-010: ML pipeline with model retraining | FR-051: ML model training API | COMP-ML-001: Python ML pipeline (scikit-learn) | TEST-021: Model accuracy > 80% | In Progress | N/A (development underway) |
**Acceptance Criteria** (from SOW):
- Dashboard displays predictions with 80% accuracy
- User can filter by date range, customer segment
- Dashboard loads in < 2 seconds
**Milestone Payment**: $150K upon customer acceptance
**Risk**: Development delayed, at risk of missing December 1 deadline → Escalate to Project Manager
### 3.3 Compliance Obligation Traceability
**Contract Clause**: CL-CONT-2024-001-5.1 (Acme Corp SOW Section 5.1)
**Obligation**: "Vendor shall maintain SOC 2 Type II certification throughout contract term and provide annual report to Customer."
**Traceability Chain**:
| Contract Clause | System Requirement | Design Decision | Implementation Artifact | Verification Method | Status | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-5.1 | NFR-020: SOC 2 compliance | ARCH-020: Compliance control framework | COMP-COMPLIANCE-001: SOC 2 controls implemented | VER-SOC2-2024: Annual SOC 2 audit | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-010: SOC 2 Type II report dated Aug 2024 |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-5.1 | NFR-021: Annual report delivery | N/A (administrative task) | N/A | VER-DELIVERY-001: Report sent to customer | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-011: Report sent Sept 1, 2024 |
**Contract Clause**: CL-CONT-2024-001-5.2 (Acme Corp SOW Section 5.2)
**Obligation**: "Vendor shall comply with HIPAA requirements and execute Business Associate Agreement (BAA) with Customer."
**Traceability Chain**:
| Contract Clause | System Requirement | Design Decision | Implementation Artifact | Verification Method | Status | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-5.2 | NFR-022: HIPAA compliance | ARCH-021: HIPAA security controls (encryption, access controls, audit logs) | COMP-HIPAA-001: HIPAA controls implemented | VER-HIPAA-2024: HIPAA security assessment | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-012: HIPAA assessment passed Aug 2024 |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-5.2 | NFR-023: BAA execution | N/A (legal agreement) | N/A | VER-BAA-001: BAA signed | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-013: BAA signed Jan 15, 2024 |
### 3.4 Intellectual Property Terms Traceability
**Contract Clause**: CL-CONT-2024-001-6.1 (Acme Corp SOW Section 6.1)
**Obligation**: "Customer owns all custom features developed under this SOW. Vendor retains ownership of platform and reusable components. No GPL or AGPL licensed code in deliverables."
**Traceability Chain**:
| Contract Clause | System Requirement | Design Decision | Implementation Artifact | Verification Method | Status | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-6.1 | NFR-030: Open source license compliance | ARCH-030: License allowlist (MIT, Apache, BSD only) | COMP-LICENSE-001: CI/CD license scanner (FOSSA) | TEST-030: License scan (no GPL/AGPL) | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-020: SBOM shows 0 GPL/AGPL deps (Sept 2024) |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-6.1 | NFR-031: IP ownership tracking | ARCH-031: Separate repositories for custom vs. platform code | COMP-REPO-001: Customer-specific repo for custom features | VER-REPO-001: Code review confirms separation | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-021: Code review Sept 15, 2024 |
### 3.5 Data Processing Agreement (DPA) Traceability
**Contract Clause**: CL-CONT-2024-001-7.1 (Acme Corp DPA Section 3)
**Obligation**: "Processor shall process Personal Data only in EU region. Cross-border transfers to US require Standard Contractual Clauses and encryption."
**Traceability Chain**:
| Contract Clause | System Requirement | Design Decision | Implementation Artifact | Verification Method | Status | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-7.1 | NFR-040: EU data residency | ARCH-040: Regional data isolation (EU data in eu-central-1) | COMP-REGION-001: AWS resources deployed in eu-central-1 | VER-REGION-001: Infrastructure audit | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-030: IaC config confirms eu-central-1 |
| CL-CONT-2024-001-7.1 | NFR-041: SCCs for cross-border transfers | ARCH-041: Standard Contractual Clauses with US support team | COMP-SCC-001: SCCs signed | VER-SCC-001: Legal review confirms SCC compliance | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-031: SCCs signed Feb 1, 2024 |
## 4 Vendor Contract Dependencies Traceability
> Map vendor SLAs and compliance requirements to risk mitigation and verification.
### 4.1 Vendor SLA Dependency
**Contract Clause**: CL-VEND-2023-001-3.1 (AWS EC2 SLA)
**Obligation**: "AWS guarantees 99.99% monthly uptime for EC2 instances in Multi-AZ configuration."
**Dependency**: Customer SLA (99.95% uptime) depends on AWS SLA (99.99% uptime)
**Traceability Chain**:
| Contract Clause | Risk | Mitigation Requirement | Implementation Artifact | Verification Method | Status | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CL-VEND-2023-001-3.1 | AWS outage cascades to customer SLA breach | NFR-050: Multi-region failover capability | ARCH-050: Active-active multi-region architecture | TEST-050: Failover test (< 5 min recovery) | Planned (2025) | N/A (multi-region not yet implemented) |
| CL-VEND-2023-001-3.1 | AWS SLA buffer insufficient (99.99% - 99.95% = 0.04%) | NFR-051: Real-time uptime monitoring and alerting | COMP-MON-002: Datadog AWS health monitoring | SLI-010: AWS service health dashboard | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-040: Monitoring active |
**Gap**: Multi-region architecture not yet implemented, customer SLA at risk if AWS outage occurs → Escalate to Engineering Lead
### 4.2 Vendor Compliance Dependency
**Contract Clause**: CL-VEND-2024-003-2.1 (Datadog MSA Section 2.1)
**Obligation**: "Datadog maintains SOC 2 Type II certification and provides annual report."
**Dependency**: Customer contract requires SOC 2 compliance, depends on Datadog maintaining certification
**Traceability Chain**:
| Contract Clause | Risk | Mitigation Requirement | Implementation Artifact | Verification Method | Status | Evidence |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CL-VEND-2024-003-2.1 | Datadog certification expires, customer compliance at risk | NFR-060: Vendor compliance tracking | COMP-VENDOR-001: Vendor compliance dashboard | VER-VENDOR-001: Quarterly vendor SOC 2 review | Complete | VER-2024-Q3-050: Datadog SOC 2 valid until Dec 2025 |
| CL-VEND-2024-003-2.1 | Datadog fails audit, need backup vendor | NFR-061: Secondary monitoring vendor | ARCH-060: Multi-vendor monitoring strategy | N/A (not yet implemented) | Planned | N/A |
**Action**: Review Datadog SOC 2 report quarterly, alert Legal Liaison 90 days before expiration
## 5 Traceability Verification
> Verify traceability completeness and accuracy.
### 5.1 Forward Traceability Verification
**Purpose**: Ensure all contract obligations have corresponding requirements, implementation, and verification
**Process**:
1. **Extract contract obligations**: Parse all customer and vendor contracts
2. **Map to requirements**: Identify system requirements addressing each obligation
3. **Identify gaps**: Obligations without requirements = gap
4. **Map to implementation**: Verify requirements are implemented
5. **Map to verification**: Verify implementation is tested/monitored
**Verification Report**:
| Contract ID | Total Obligations | Traced to Requirements | Traced to Implementation | Traced to Verification | Gaps |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| CONT-2024-001 (Acme Corp) | 25 | 25 (100%) | 23 (92%) | 23 (92%) | 2 (NFR-050, NFR-061 not implemented) |
| VEND-2023-001 (AWS) | 5 | 5 (100%) | 5 (100%) | 5 (100%) | 0 |
**Gap Analysis**: 2 obligations not fully implemented (multi-region architecture, secondary monitoring vendor) → Create work items
### 5.2 Backward Traceability Verification
**Purpose**: Ensure all requirements, designs, and implementations trace back to contract obligations (avoid gold-plating, out-of-scope work)
**Process**:
1. **List all requirements**: From supplementary spec, SRS, architecture docs
2. **Trace to contract**: Identify which contract clause drives each requirement
3. **Identify orphans**: Requirements without contract traceability = potential scope creep
4. **Validate necessity**: Are orphan requirements needed? (technical necessity, regulatory requirement, etc.)
**Orphan Report**:
| Requirement ID | Description | Contract Traceability | Justification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| NFR-100 | Implement GraphQL API | None (not in contract) | Technical preference, not contractually required → Review with Product Manager |
| NFR-101 | Support dark mode UI | None (not in contract) | User experience enhancement → Defer to future release |
**Action**: Review orphan requirements, prioritize contract-driven work first
### 5.3 Automated Traceability Checks
**Tools**:
- **Metadata extraction**: Parse contract PDFs, extract clauses, obligations
- **Requirements database**: Store requirements with contract links in [tool]
- **Traceability graph**: Visualize contract → requirement → implementation → verification links
- **Gap detection**: Automated reports of missing traceability links
**CI/CD Integration**: Block phase gate transitions if traceability gaps exceed threshold (e.g., > 5% obligations untraced)
**Traceability Dashboard**: Real-time view of traceability completeness, gaps, status
## 6 Gap Identification and Resolution
> Identify and address gaps in traceability.
### 6.1 Gap Types
| Gap Type | Description | Impact | Resolution |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **Contract obligation without requirement** | Contractual commitment not captured in requirements | Contract breach risk, missing functionality | Create requirement, assign owner, prioritize |
| **Requirement without implementation** | Requirement specified but not built | Contract breach risk, incomplete delivery | Create work item, assign to development team |
| **Implementation without verification** | Feature built but not tested | Quality risk, cannot prove compliance | Create test case, execute, document results |
| **Contract obligation without verification** | No evidence of compliance | Audit failure, customer dispute | Define verification method, collect evidence |
### 6.2 Gap Resolution Process
**Step 1: Identify Gaps**
- Run traceability verification (Section 5.1)
- Generate gap report (obligations without full traceability chain)
**Step 2: Prioritize Gaps**
- **P0 (Critical)**: Contract breach imminent (deadline < 30 days, customer escalation)
- **P1 (High)**: Contract breach likely (deadline < 90 days, high financial impact)
- **P2 (Medium)**: Contract risk (deadline > 90 days, moderate financial impact)
- **P3 (Low)**: Minor gaps (informational requirements, low impact)
**Step 3: Assign Owners**
- Gap owner: Stakeholder responsible for closing gap
- Due date: Based on contract deadline and priority
- Status: Open / In Progress / Closed
**Step 4: Close Gaps**
- Create missing requirement, implementation, or verification
- Update traceability matrix
- Verify gap closed (full traceability chain complete)
**Step 5: Prevent Recurrence**
- Root cause analysis: Why was gap missed?
- Process improvement: Update intake process, requirements process, review checklists
### 6.3 Gap Tracking
**Gap Register**:
| Gap ID | Contract Clause | Gap Type | Description | Priority | Owner | Due Date | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| GAP-001 | CL-CONT-2024-001-4.1 | Requirement without implementation | Multi-region failover not implemented | P1 | Engineering Lead | 2025-06-01 | Open |
| GAP-002 | CL-CONT-2024-001-2.1 | Implementation without verification | Feature X not yet UAT tested | P1 | QA Lead | 2025-11-15 | In Progress |
| GAP-003 | CL-VEND-2024-003-2.1 | Contract obligation without verification | Secondary monitoring vendor not identified | P2 | DevOps Lead | 2025-12-31 | Open |
**Gap Review Frequency**: Weekly (for P0/P1 gaps), Monthly (for P2/P3 gaps)
**Gap Escalation**: If gap not closed by due date, escalate to Project Manager and Legal Liaison
## 7 Reporting and Dashboards
> Provide visibility into contract traceability status.
### 7.1 Traceability Completeness Report
**Metrics**:
- **Total contract obligations**: [Count]
- **Obligations traced to requirements**: [Count, %]
- **Obligations traced to implementation**: [Count, %]
- **Obligations traced to verification**: [Count, %]
- **Traceability completeness**: [% with full chain]
- **Open gaps**: [Count by priority]
**Dashboard**: Real-time traceability status, updated as requirements/implementation/verification progresses
**Access**: Project Manager, Legal Liaison, Traceability Manager
### 7.2 Contract Compliance Dashboard
**Metrics**:
- **Customer SLA compliance**: [% uptime, response times, etc. vs. SLA targets]
- **Feature deliverable status**: [% complete, on track / at risk / delayed]
- **Compliance certifications**: [SOC 2, HIPAA, etc. - valid / expiring / expired]
- **Vendor SLA performance**: [% vendor SLA compliance]
**Dashboard**: Operational metrics linked to contract obligations
**Access**: Project Manager, Legal Liaison, Operations Team
### 7.3 Executive Contract Risk Dashboard
**Metrics**:
- **Contracts at risk**: [Count of contracts with unmitigated risks]
- **SLA breach risk**: [Contracts projected to breach SLA in next 30 days]
- **Deliverable delays**: [Count of deliverables at risk of missing deadlines]
- **Gap count**: [Open gaps by priority]
- **Financial exposure**: [Total potential penalties, credits, revenue at risk]
**Dashboard**: Executive summary of contract-related risks
**Access**: CEO, General Counsel, Project Management Office
## Appendices
### Appendix A: Traceability Matrix Template (CSV/Excel)
**Columns**:
- Contract ID
- Contract Clause ID
- Contract Clause Text
- Obligation Summary
- Requirement ID
- Requirement Description
- Design Decision ID
- Implementation Artifact ID
- Verification Method ID
- Verification Evidence Link
- Status (Planned/In Progress/Complete/Verified)
- Owner
- Due Date
- Gap? (Yes/No)
**Export**: CSV for import into traceability tools, Excel for manual review
### Appendix B: Contract Clause Parsing Script
**Purpose**: Automate extraction of contract clauses from PDFs
**Tool**: Python script using PyPDF2, regex to extract clauses
**Output**: CSV with clause IDs, text, obligation summaries
**Usage**: `python extract-clauses.py contract.pdf > clauses.csv`
### Appendix C: Traceability Visualization
**Tool**: Graphviz, Mermaid, or traceability tool
**Visualization**: Directed graph showing contract → requirement → design → implementation → verification links
**Example**:
```
CL-CONT-2024-001-4.1 (99.95% uptime)
→ NFR-001 (System uptime ≥ 99.95%)
→ ARCH-001 (Multi-AZ deployment)
→ COMP-INFRA-001 (AWS Auto Scaling Group)
→ SLI-001 (Uptime monitoring)
→ VER-2024-Q3-001 (99.97% uptime Sept 2024)
```
**Output**: PNG, SVG, or interactive HTML graph
## Agent Notes
- Prioritize traceability for high-risk contracts (large customers, high revenue, regulatory requirements)
- Automate traceability where possible (metadata extraction, CI/CD gap detection)
- Use traceability to prevent scope creep (orphan requirements without contract basis)
- Verify traceability completeness at phase gates (Elaboration: requirements traced, Transition: verification traced)
- Gap identification early (Inception, Elaboration) prevents last-minute scramble before deadlines
- Link traceability to contract compliance dashboard (real-time SLA monitoring)
- Document verification evidence (test results, audit reports, monitoring screenshots) for contract audits
- Coordinate with Legal Liaison on contract interpretation (what obligations require traceability)
- Verify Automation Outputs entry is satisfied before signaling completion