cleanup

draft/System Design old/System Review Checklist.md

@@ -0,0 +1,304 @@
+# System Review Checklist
+
+**Project:** Sensor Hub – Poultry Farm Automation  
+**Scope:** Sensor Hub (Sub-Hub Only)  
+**Purpose:** Verify system readiness before FRD/SAD generation and AI-assisted implementation
+
+## 1\. Requirements Completeness Review
+
+### 1.1 Feature Coverage
+
+✔ All major functional domains defined:
+
+*   ☐ Data Acquisition (DAQ)
+    
+*   ☐ Data Quality & Calibration (DQC)
+    
+*   ☐ Communication (COM)
+    
+*   ☐ Diagnostics & Health (DIAG)
+    
+*   ☐ Persistence & Data Management (DATA)
+    
+*   ☐ OTA Update (OTA)
+    
+*   ☐ Security & Safety (SEC)
+    
+*   ☐ System Management & HMI (SYS)
+    
+
+**Acceptance Criteria:**  
+No functional behavior is undocumented or implicit.
+
+### 1.2 Requirement Quality
+
+For **each system requirement**, verify:
+
+*   ☐ Uses “SHALL”
+    
+*   ☐ Is testable
+    
+*   ☐ Is unambiguous
+    
+*   ☐ Has a unique ID
+    
+*   ☐ Is traceable to a feature
+    
+
+**Red Flags:**
+
+*   Vague timing (“fast”, “real-time”)
+    
+*   Mixed requirements (“shall… and …”)
+    
+*   Implementation leakage (“using mutex”)
+    
+
+## 2\. Architectural Soundness Review
+
+### 2.1 Layering & Separation of Concerns
+
+*   ☐ Hardware access isolated
+    
+*   ☐ No feature bypasses System Manager
+    
+*   ☐ Persistence accessed only via DP
+    
+*   ☐ HMI does not modify safety-critical configuration
+    
+
+**Fail Condition:**  
+Any feature directly accesses hardware or storage without abstraction.
+
+### 2.2 State Machine Validity
+
+*   ☐ All system states defined
+    
+*   ☐ Valid transitions documented
+    
+*   ☐ Illegal transitions blocked
+    
+*   ☐ Feature behavior defined per state
+    
+
+**States to Verify:**
+
+*   INIT
+    
+*   IDLE
+    
+*   RUNNING
+    
+*   DEGRADED
+    
+*   OTA\_UPDATE
+    
+*   TEARDOWN
+    
+*   ERROR
+    
+
+## 3\. Cross-Feature Constraint Compliance
+
+### 3.1 Constraint Awareness
+
+*   ☐ Each feature respects cross-feature constraints
+    
+*   ☐ No constraint contradicts a requirement
+    
+*   ☐ Constraints are globally enforceable
+    
+
+### 3.2 Conflict Resolution
+
+Check for conflicts such as:
+
+*   ☐ OTA vs DAQ timing
+    
+*   ☐ Persistence vs Power Loss
+    
+*   ☐ Diagnostics vs Real-Time Tasks
+    
+*   ☐ Debug vs Secure Boot
+    
+
+**Acceptance:**  
+Conflicts resolved via priority rules or system state restrictions.
+
+## 4\. Timing & Performance Review
+
+### 4.1 Real-Time Constraints
+
+*   ☐ High-frequency sampling bounded
+    
+*   ☐ Worst-case execution time considered
+    
+*   ☐ Non-blocking design enforced
+    
+
+### 4.2 Resource Usage
+
+*   ☐ CPU usage bounded
+    
+*   ☐ RAM usage predictable
+    
+*   ☐ Stack sizes justified
+    
+*   ☐ Heap usage minimized in runtime
+    
+
+## 5\. Reliability & Fault Handling Review
+
+### 5.1 Fault Detection
+
+*   ☐ Sensor failure detection defined
+    
+*   ☐ Communication failure detection defined
+    
+*   ☐ Storage failure detection defined
+    
+
+### 5.2 Fault Response
+
+*   ☐ Graceful degradation defined
+    
+*   ☐ Diagnostics logged
+    
+*   ☐ System state updated appropriately
+    
+
+## 6\. Security Review
+
+### 6.1 Boot & Firmware
+
+*   ☐ Secure boot enforced
+    
+*   ☐ Firmware integrity verified
+    
+*   ☐ Rollback prevention defined
+    
+
+### 6.2 Communication
+
+*   ☐ Encryption mandatory
+    
+*   ☐ Authentication required
+    
+*   ☐ Key management strategy defined
+    
+
+### 6.3 Debug Access
+
+*   ☐ Debug sessions authenticated
+    
+*   ☐ Debug disabled in production unless authorized
+    
+*   ☐ Debug cannot bypass security or safety
+    
+
+## 7\. Data Management Review
+
+### 7.1 Data Ownership
+
+*   ☐ Single source of truth enforced
+    
+*   ☐ Clear ownership per data type
+    
+*   ☐ No duplicated persistent data
+    
+
+### 7.2 Persistence Safety
+
+*   ☐ Safe writes during state transitions
+    
+*   ☐ Power-loss tolerance defined
+    
+*   ☐ Data recovery defined
+    
+
+## 8\. HMI & Usability Review (OLED + Buttons)
+
+### 8.1 Display Content
+
+*   ☐ Connectivity status
+    
+*   ☐ System status
+    
+*   ☐ Connected sensors
+    
+*   ☐ Time & date
+    
+
+### 8.2 Navigation Logic
+
+*   ☐ Menu hierarchy defined
+    
+*   ☐ Button behavior consistent
+    
+*   ☐ No destructive action via UI
+    
+
+## 9\. Standards & Compliance Readiness
+
+### 9.1 IEC 61499 Mapping Readiness
+
+*   ☐ Functional blocks identifiable
+    
+*   ☐ Event/data separation respected
+    
+*   ☐ Distributed execution possible
+    
+
+### 9.2 ISA-95 Alignment Readiness
+
+*   ☐ Sensor Hub maps to Level 1/2
+    
+*   ☐ Clear boundary to Level 3/4
+    
+*   ☐ No business logic leakage
+    
+
+## 10\. AI Readiness Review
+
+### 10.1 Prompt Compatibility
+
+*   ☐ Features modular
+    
+*   ☐ Requirements structured
+    
+*   ☐ Architecture explicit
+    
+
+### 10.2 Tool Handoff Readiness
+
+*   ☐ Claude can generate FRD/SAD
+    
+*   ☐ Mermaid diagrams derivable
+    
+*   ☐ DeepSeek can critique logic
+    
+*   ☐ Cursor rules enforce constraints
+    
+
+## Final Gate Decision
+
+### GO / NO-GO Criteria
+
+**GO** if:
+
+*   All sections ≥ 90% checked
+    
+*   No critical architectural violation
+    
+*   Security constraints enforced
+    
+
+**NO-GO** if:
+
+*   Missing system states
+    
+*   Undefined failure behavior
+    
+*   Security gaps
+    
+*   Persistence inconsistency