# Communication Plan: Test Quality Audit and Performance Optimization

**Project ID**: 004-optimize-test-concurrency
**Created**: 2025-12-11
**Status**: Active
**Methodology**: DfLSS (Define, Measure, Explore, Develop, Implement)

---

## Executive Summary

This communication plan ensures all stakeholders are aligned, informed, and engaged throughout the Test Quality Audit and Performance Optimization project. It establishes clear communication channels, reporting cadences, and escalation paths to prevent misalignment and maintain project momentum.

**Key Principles**:
- **Transparency**: All stakeholders have visibility into progress, risks, and decisions
- **Timeliness**: Information delivered when needed, not after the fact
- **Relevance**: Stakeholders receive information appropriate to their role and interest
- **Feedback**: Two-way communication enables course correction
- **Escalation**: Clear paths for resolving blockers and conflicts

---

## Stakeholder Analysis

### Power/Interest Matrix

```
                    HIGH INTEREST
                    │
    ┌───────────────┼───────────────┐
    │               │               │
    │  KEEP         │  MANAGE       │
H   │  SATISFIED    │  CLOSELY      │
I   │               │               │
G   │  - CI/CD Team │  - Project    │
H   │  - QA Team    │    Sponsor    │
    │               │  - Tech Lead  │
P   │               │  - Dev Team   │
O   ├───────────────┼───────────────┤
W   │               │               │
E   │  MONITOR      │  KEEP         │
R   │               │  INFORMED     │
    │               │               │
    │  - End Users  │  - Individual │
    │  - Legal/     │    Developers │
    │    Compliance │  - Marketing  │
    │               │    (OSS PR)   │
    └───────────────┼───────────────┘
                    │
                    LOW INTEREST
```

### Stakeholder Registry

#### Primary Stakeholders (Manage Closely)

**1. Project Sponsor**
- **Name/Role**: Open Source Project Maintainer
- **Interest**: High (project success impacts reputation)
- **Power**: High (approves charter, allocates resources)
- **Engagement Strategy**:
  - Weekly status reports (written)
  - Bi-weekly design reviews (attend)
  - Ad-hoc escalations (respond within 24 hours)
- **Communication Needs**:
  - Overall project status (on track, at risk, delayed)
  - Major decisions requiring approval
  - Risks with business impact
  - Resource allocation changes
- **Success Criteria**: Approves charter, supports project, unblocks escalations

**2. Tech Lead**
- **Name/Role**: Technical Authority / Architect
- **Interest**: High (technical quality and design)
- **Power**: High (approves design, reviews implementation)
- **Engagement Strategy**:
  - Bi-weekly design reviews (lead discussions)
  - Weekly technical updates (email)
  - Ad-hoc consultations (architecture decisions)
- **Communication Needs**:
  - Technical design decisions
  - Architecture tradeoffs
  - Risk mitigation strategies
  - Performance benchmarks
- **Success Criteria**: Approves design, validates implementation quality

**3. Development Team**
- **Name/Role**: Active Contributors (5-10 developers)
- **Interest**: High (daily test suite usage)
- **Power**: Medium (provides feedback, adopts solution)
- **Engagement Strategy**:
  - Daily standups (async text updates)
  - Weekly progress summaries (written)
  - VOC interviews (Week 1)
  - Pilot testing (Week 3)
- **Communication Needs**:
  - Test suite changes affecting workflow
  - New test authoring guidelines
  - Performance improvements
  - How to provide feedback
- **Success Criteria**: Provides VOC input, adopts optimized suite, reports satisfaction

#### Secondary Stakeholders (Keep Satisfied/Informed)

**4. CI/CD Team**
- **Name/Role**: Build/Release Infrastructure Team
- **Interest**: Medium (integrates test suite into pipelines)
- **Power**: High (controls CI/CD execution environment)
- **Engagement Strategy**:
  - Bi-weekly integration updates
  - Ad-hoc consultations (CI-specific issues)
- **Communication Needs**:
  - CI/CD integration requirements
  - Backward compatibility considerations
  - Rollout timeline
- **Success Criteria**: Integrates optimized suite into CI/CD without disruption

**5. QA Team**
- **Name/Role**: Quality Assurance / Test Engineers
- **Interest**: Medium (test quality validation)
- **Power**: Medium (validates test quality improvements)
- **Engagement Strategy**:
  - Weekly quality updates
  - QA validation sessions (Weeks 2-3)
- **Communication Needs**:
  - Test quality metrics
  - Validation procedures
  - Bug detection capability
- **Success Criteria**: Validates test quality improvements, approves rollout

**6. Individual Developers (Contributors)**
- **Name/Role**: Occasional Contributors
- **Interest**: Low-Medium (use test suite occasionally)
- **Power**: Low (no decision authority)
- **Engagement Strategy**:
  - Weekly summaries (posted to public channel)
  - Documentation updates (self-service)
- **Communication Needs**:
  - What changed in test suite
  - How to run tests
  - Where to report issues
- **Success Criteria**: Can use optimized suite without confusion

**7. End Users**
- **Name/Role**: Users of generated code from ggen
- **Interest**: Low (indirect benefit from quality improvements)
- **Power**: Low (no project involvement)
- **Engagement Strategy**:
  - Monitor only (no active communication)
  - Release notes mention (final release)
- **Communication Needs**:
  - None (benefit passively from fewer production bugs)
- **Success Criteria**: Experience fewer production defects

---

## Communication Matrix

### What | Who | When | How | Responsibility

| **Information Type** | **Audience** | **Frequency** | **Delivery Method** | **Owner** | **Format** |
|----------------------|--------------|---------------|---------------------|-----------|------------|
| **Project Charter** | All Primary | One-time (Day 1) | Email + Document | System Architect | Written (Markdown) |
| **Daily Standup** | Agent Swarm + Sponsor | Daily (Weekdays) | Text Update (async) | Task Orchestrator | 3 Questions (Yesterday/Today/Blockers) |
| **Weekly Status Report** | All Stakeholders | Weekly (Friday EOD) | Email + Dashboard | Task Orchestrator | Structured Report (see template) |
| **Bi-Weekly Design Review** | Tech Lead, Dev Team, QA | Bi-Weekly (Tues) | Meeting (60 min) | System Architect | Demo + Discussion |
| **VOC Interviews** | Development Team | Week 1 (Days 4-5) | 1-on-1 Interviews (30 min) | Code Analyzer | Interview Notes |
| **Risk Updates** | Sponsor, Tech Lead | As Needed | Email (within 4 hours) | Task Orchestrator | RACI Template |
| **Escalations** | Sponsor | As Needed | Email/Slack (within 1 hour) | Any Agent | Escalation Form |
| **Design Decisions** | Tech Lead, Dev Team | As Made | Email + Document | System Architect | ADR (Architecture Decision Record) |
| **Test Quality Audit Report** | All Primary | Week 2 (Day 7) | Document + Meeting | Code Analyzer | Full Report (Markdown) |
| **Performance Benchmarks** | Tech Lead, Sponsor | Weekly (Friday) | Dashboard + Email | Performance Benchmarker | Metrics Table |
| **Pilot Results** | All Primary | Week 3 (Day 19) | Document + Demo | Tester | Test Report |
| **Implementation Rollout** | All Stakeholders | Week 4 (Day 22) | Email + Documentation | Production Validator | Rollout Plan |
| **Retrospective** | All Primary | Week 4 (Day 23) | Meeting (90 min) | Task Orchestrator | Lessons Learned Doc |

---

## Meeting Cadence

### Daily Standup (Agent Swarm Coordination)

**Purpose**: Synchronize agent activities, identify blockers, maintain momentum

**Attendees**:
- All 8 agents (System Architect, Code Analyzer x2, Production Validator, Performance Benchmarker, Backend Dev, Task Orchestrator, Tester)
- Project Sponsor (observer, optional)

**Format**: Async text update (no synchronous meeting)

**Timing**: Start of each workday (9:00 AM)

**Duration**: 5 minutes (write), 10 minutes (read)

**Template**:
```markdown
## Daily Standup - [Date]

**Agent**: [Agent Name/Role]

**Yesterday**:
- ✅ [Completed task 1]
- ✅ [Completed task 2]

**Today**:
- 🔄 [In-progress task 1]
- 📋 [Planned task 2]

**Blockers**:
- ⛔ [Blocker description] (Owner: [Who can unblock])
- [None]

**Metrics**:
- Tests analyzed: [N/total]
- Performance: [Current vs target]
```

**Escalation Trigger**: If blocker remains unresolved for >24 hours

---

### Weekly Status Report (Stakeholder Updates)

**Purpose**: Inform all stakeholders of progress, risks, and decisions

**Attendees**: All stakeholders (receive report via email)

**Format**: Written report (Markdown document)

**Timing**: Every Friday, 5:00 PM

**Duration**: 15 minutes to read

**Template**:
```markdown
# Weekly Status Report - Week [N] ([Date Range])

## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences: Overall status, key achievements, major risks]

## Progress Against Success Criteria
| Criteria | Target | Current | Status | Notes |
|----------|--------|---------|--------|-------|
| SC-001: ggen.toml fix | ✅ Fixed | 🔄 In Progress | 🟡 At Risk | [Details] |
| SC-002: Critical paths | 100% | 65% | 🟢 On Track | [Details] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Phase Status
**Current Phase**: [Define/Measure/Explore/Develop/Implement]
**Phase Progress**: [X%] complete
**Phase End Date**: [Target] (🟢 On Track / 🟡 At Risk / 🔴 Delayed)

## Key Achievements This Week
- ✅ [Achievement 1]
- ✅ [Achievement 2]
- ✅ [Achievement 3]

## Decisions Made
1. **[Decision title]**
   - **What**: [Description]
   - **Why**: [Rationale]
   - **Impact**: [Stakeholder impact]
   - **Owner**: [Decision maker]

## Risks and Issues
| ID | Description | Probability | Impact | Status | Mitigation |
|----|-------------|-------------|--------|--------|------------|
| R01 | [Risk description] | High | High | 🔴 Active | [Mitigation strategy] |
| R02 | [Risk description] | Medium | Low | 🟢 Monitored | [Mitigation strategy] |

## Next Week Plan
- 📋 [Planned task 1]
- 📋 [Planned task 2]
- 📋 [Planned task 3]

## Blockers and Escalations
- ⛔ [Blocker 1] - Owner: [Name], ETA: [Date]
- [None]

## Metrics Dashboard
- **Tests Analyzed**: [N/1240] ([X%])
- **False Positives Fixed**: [N] (Target: [M])
- **Test Execution Time**: [Xs] (Target: ≤11s)
- **Bug Detection Rate**: [X%] (Target: ≥80%)
- **Timeline**: Week [N]/4 ([X%] complete)
```

---

### Bi-Weekly Design Review (Technical Decisions)

**Purpose**: Review design decisions, validate technical approach, gather feedback

**Attendees**:
- Required: Tech Lead, System Architect, Code Analyzer (lead)
- Optional: Dev Team, QA Team, Project Sponsor

**Format**: Synchronous meeting (video/in-person) with demo

**Timing**: Every 2 weeks (Tuesday, 2:00 PM)

**Duration**: 60 minutes

**Agenda**:
```markdown
## Bi-Weekly Design Review - [Date]

### 1. Design Review (30 minutes)
- **What**: Present design decisions made since last review
- **Artifacts**: Architecture diagrams, ADRs, prototypes
- **Discussion**: Gather feedback, validate approach

### 2. Demo (15 minutes)
- **What**: Live demo of progress (test audit tools, optimized suite)
- **Show**: Tangible progress, not slides

### 3. Risks and Decisions (10 minutes)
- **What**: Review open risks, pending decisions
- **Action**: Resolve decisions requiring Tech Lead approval

### 4. Next Steps (5 minutes)
- **What**: Preview next 2 weeks' plan
- **Commitment**: Confirm resources, timeline
```

**Artifacts**:
- Design presentations (slides or documents)
- Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
- Live demos (code, tools, dashboards)

**Decisions Made**:
- Architecture approvals
- Design tradeoff selections
- Risk mitigation strategies

---

### Monthly Steering Committee (Project Direction)

**Purpose**: Strategic alignment, resource allocation, project direction

**Note**: Not applicable for 4-week project (would be relevant for longer engagements)

**For this project**: Combined into Bi-Weekly Design Reviews with Sponsor attendance

---

## Escalation Path

### Escalation Levels

**Level 1 - Agent Swarm (0-24 hours)**
- **When**: Routine blockers, questions, coordination issues
- **Who**: Any agent → Task Orchestrator
- **Response Time**: Same day (<4 hours)
- **Resolution**: Task Orchestrator reassigns work, unblocks agent

**Level 2 - Tech Lead (24-48 hours)**
- **When**: Technical decisions, design tradeoffs, unresolved Level 1 escalations
- **Who**: Task Orchestrator → Tech Lead
- **Response Time**: Next business day (<24 hours)
- **Resolution**: Tech Lead makes decision, approves design, provides guidance

**Level 3 - Project Sponsor (48+ hours)**
- **When**: Resource constraints, timeline risks, scope changes, unresolved Level 2 escalations
- **Who**: Tech Lead → Project Sponsor
- **Response Time**: Within 48 hours
- **Resolution**: Sponsor adjusts resources, approves scope change, accepts timeline extension

**Level 4 - Executive Leadership (Critical Only)**
- **When**: Project cancellation risk, major resource reallocation, business impact
- **Who**: Project Sponsor → Executive Leadership
- **Response Time**: Immediate (for critical issues)
- **Resolution**: Executive decision on project continuation, resource reallocation

### Escalation Triggers

**Trigger 1: Blocker Unresolved for >24 Hours**
- **Action**: Escalate from Level 1 to Level 2
- **Example**: Agent waiting for design decision, Tech Lead input needed

**Trigger 2: Success Criteria at Risk**
- **Action**: Escalate to Level 2 (or Level 3 if severe)
- **Example**: Test audit reveals 90% false positives (vs 80% expected), timeline at risk

**Trigger 3: Timeline Delay >2 Days**
- **Action**: Escalate to Level 3
- **Example**: Phase 1 extends from 3 days to 5 days, impacts overall timeline

**Trigger 4: Scope Change Request**
- **Action**: Escalate to Level 3
- **Example**: Audit reveals need to rewrite 50% of tests (not originally scoped)

**Trigger 5: Resource Unavailability**
- **Action**: Escalate to Level 3
- **Example**: Key agent (Code Analyzer) unavailable for 3+ days

**Trigger 6: Critical Defect in Production**
- **Action**: Escalate to Level 4 (immediate)
- **Example**: Optimized test suite misses critical bug, ships to production

### Escalation Process

**Step 1: Identify Issue**
- Agent identifies blocker, risk, or issue requiring escalation
- Agent attempts resolution within their authority

**Step 2: Document Issue**
- Use Escalation Form (see template below)
- Include: Description, impact, urgency, proposed resolution

**Step 3: Notify Next Level**
- Email + Slack notification to escalation recipient
- Include Escalation Form as attachment

**Step 4: Track Resolution**
- Escalation owner acknowledges receipt (within 1 hour)
- Escalation owner provides initial response (within response time SLA)
- Escalation owner resolves or escalates further

**Step 5: Close Escalation**
- Document resolution
- Notify original escalator
- Update risk register

### Escalation Form Template

```markdown
# Escalation Form

**Escalation ID**: ESC-[YYYYMMDD]-[NN]
**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Time**: [HH:MM]
**Escalated By**: [Agent Name/Role]
**Escalated To**: [Recipient Name/Role]
**Escalation Level**: [1/2/3/4]

## Issue Description
[Clear, concise description of the issue]

## Business Impact
- **Severity**: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
- **Impact**: [What is affected? Users? Timeline? Quality?]
- **Urgency**: [Immediate/24h/48h/Flexible]

## Root Cause (if known)
[What caused the issue?]

## Proposed Resolution
[What is the recommended solution?]

## Alternative Options
1. [Option 1]
2. [Option 2]

## Decision Required
[What decision needs to be made? By whom? By when?]

## Context and Background
[Relevant information for decision maker]

## Attachments
- [Link to related documents]
- [Relevant metrics/data]

---

**Escalation Log**:
- **[Timestamp]**: Escalated by [Name] to [Name]
- **[Timestamp]**: Acknowledged by [Name]
- **[Timestamp]**: Response provided: [Summary]
- **[Timestamp]**: Resolved: [Resolution]
```

---

## Communication Protocols

### Response Time SLAs

| **Communication Type** | **Target Response Time** | **Owner** |
|------------------------|--------------------------|-----------|
| Daily Standup | Same day (by 10 AM) | All Agents |
| Weekly Status Report | Friday 5 PM (no exceptions) | Task Orchestrator |
| Escalation (Level 1) | <4 hours | Task Orchestrator |
| Escalation (Level 2) | <24 hours | Tech Lead |
| Escalation (Level 3) | <48 hours | Project Sponsor |
| Escalation (Level 4) | Immediate | Executive Leadership |
| Risk Update | <4 hours (after identification) | Agent who identified risk |
| Design Review Feedback | Within 2 business days | Tech Lead |
| VOC Interview | Within 1 week (after request) | Code Analyzer |

### Communication Channels

**Primary Channel**: Email
- All formal communication (status reports, escalations, decisions)
- Persistent record (searchable, auditable)

**Secondary Channel**: Slack (or equivalent)
- Quick questions, clarifications, informal updates
- Not for formal decisions (must be followed up in email)

**Tertiary Channel**: Meetings
- Design reviews, retrospectives, VOC interviews
- Always followed by written summary (email)

**Documentation Channel**: Git Repository
- All deliverables (reports, plans, designs)
- Location: `specs/004-optimize-test-concurrency/dflss/`
- Version controlled, trackable

### Communication Best Practices

**1. Structured Formats**
- Use templates for consistency
- Include all required fields
- Attach supporting data

**2. Actionable Content**
- Clear next steps
- Assigned owners
- Due dates

**3. Evidence-Based**
- Include metrics, data, benchmarks
- Reference source documents
- Avoid speculation

**4. Timely Delivery**
- Meet SLAs (response times)
- Don't wait for perfection (iterate)
- Escalate early (not after deadline)

**5. Two-Way Communication**
- Request feedback
- Acknowledge receipt
- Close the loop

---

## Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

### Development Team (High Interest, Medium Power)

**Objective**: Ensure adoption and satisfaction with optimized test suite

**Engagement Activities**:
1. **VOC Interviews** (Week 1, Days 4-5)
   - 1-on-1 interviews (30 minutes each)
   - Capture pain points, desired outcomes, success criteria
   - Document in VOC report

2. **Weekly Progress Updates** (Every Friday)
   - Email summary of progress
   - Highlight changes affecting developer workflow
   - Invite feedback

3. **Pilot Testing** (Week 3, Days 18-19)
   - Select 3-5 developers for pilot
   - Provide early access to optimized suite
   - Gather feedback, iterate

4. **Training and Documentation** (Week 4, Day 22)
   - Create user guide for optimized suite
   - Host walkthrough session (30 minutes)
   - Answer questions

**Success Metric**: 80%+ developer satisfaction with optimized suite

---

### Tech Lead (High Interest, High Power)

**Objective**: Validate technical design and approve implementation

**Engagement Activities**:
1. **Bi-Weekly Design Reviews** (Weeks 2, 4)
   - Present design decisions
   - Demo progress
   - Get approval on architecture

2. **Weekly Technical Briefs** (Every Friday)
   - Email with technical highlights
   - Design decisions made
   - Performance benchmarks

3. **Ad-Hoc Consultations** (As needed)
   - Slack/email for quick questions
   - Scheduled calls for complex tradeoffs

**Success Metric**: Tech Lead approves design and implementation

---

### Project Sponsor (High Interest, High Power)

**Objective**: Maintain support, unblock escalations, approve scope changes

**Engagement Activities**:
1. **Weekly Status Reports** (Every Friday)
   - Email with overall project status
   - Risks, decisions, timeline
   - Escalations requiring action

2. **Bi-Weekly Design Reviews** (Optional attendance)
   - Invite to design reviews
   - Attendance optional but encouraged

3. **Ad-Hoc Escalations** (As needed)
   - Email/Slack for urgent issues
   - Rapid response for blockers

4. **Final Retrospective** (Week 4, Day 23)
   - Meeting to review project outcomes
   - Lessons learned
   - Approval for rollout

**Success Metric**: Sponsor approves project, supports rollout

---

### CI/CD Team (Medium Interest, High Power)

**Objective**: Ensure smooth integration into CI/CD pipelines

**Engagement Activities**:
1. **Bi-Weekly Integration Updates** (Weeks 2, 4)
   - Email with CI/CD requirements
   - Integration plan
   - Timeline for rollout

2. **Ad-Hoc Consultations** (As needed)
   - Slack/email for CI-specific questions
   - Integration testing support

3. **Integration Testing** (Week 4, Days 21-22)
   - Work with CI/CD team to test integration
   - Validate no disruption to existing pipelines

**Success Metric**: CI/CD team approves integration, no pipeline disruption

---

### QA Team (Medium Interest, Medium Power)

**Objective**: Validate test quality improvements

**Engagement Activities**:
1. **Weekly Quality Updates** (Every Friday)
   - Email with test quality metrics
   - Mutation testing results
   - Bug detection rates

2. **QA Validation Sessions** (Weeks 2-3)
   - Invite QA to validate test quality
   - Review mutation testing methodology
   - Get approval on quality improvements

**Success Metric**: QA team validates test quality improvements

---

## Change Management

### Rollout Strategy

**Phase 1: Awareness** (Weeks 1-2)
- Communicate project goals and benefits
- Explain why test quality audit is needed (ggen.toml example)
- Gather feedback and concerns

**Phase 2: Pilot** (Week 3)
- Select 3-5 developers for pilot
- Provide early access to optimized suite
- Gather feedback, iterate

**Phase 3: Rollout** (Week 4)
- Make optimized suite default
- Provide documentation and training
- Monitor adoption and satisfaction

**Phase 4: Support** (Post-Week 4)
- Ongoing support for questions
- Monitor for issues
- Iterate based on feedback

### Resistance Management

**Anticipated Resistance**:
1. "Tests already work fine" (unaware of false positives)
2. "Too much change too fast" (overwhelmed)
3. "What if optimized suite misses bugs?" (risk aversion)

**Mitigation Strategies**:
1. **Education**: Share ggen.toml example, explain false positives
2. **Gradual Rollout**: Pilot first, default later
3. **Safety Net**: Full suite continues to run in CI/CD (backup)

**Feedback Mechanisms**:
- Weekly surveys (1-2 questions)
- Slack channel for questions
- Office hours (30 minutes/week)

---

## Success Metrics for Communication Plan

**Metric 1: Stakeholder Engagement**
- **Target**: 90%+ stakeholders attend/read their assigned communications
- **Measurement**: Meeting attendance, email open rates
- **Current**: TBD (baseline Week 1)

**Metric 2: Escalation Resolution Time**
- **Target**: 100% of escalations resolved within SLA
- **Measurement**: Track escalation open time vs SLA
- **Current**: TBD (track throughout project)

**Metric 3: Stakeholder Satisfaction**
- **Target**: 80%+ stakeholders satisfied with communication frequency and quality
- **Measurement**: End-of-project survey
- **Current**: TBD (survey Week 4)

**Metric 4: Decision Velocity**
- **Target**: Average <48 hours from question to decision
- **Measurement**: Track time from escalation to resolution
- **Current**: TBD (track throughout project)

**Metric 5: Information Accuracy**
- **Target**: Zero material errors in status reports
- **Measurement**: Audit status reports for factual accuracy
- **Current**: TBD (audit Week 4)

---

## Communication Artifacts and Storage

### Document Repository

**Location**: `specs/004-optimize-test-concurrency/dflss/communications/`

**Structure**:
```
communications/
├── status-reports/
│   ├── week-1-status.md
│   ├── week-2-status.md
│   ├── week-3-status.md
│   └── week-4-status.md
├── design-reviews/
│   ├── design-review-1-notes.md
│   └── design-review-2-notes.md
├── escalations/
│   ├── ESC-20251211-01.md
│   └── ESC-20251215-02.md
├── decisions/
│   ├── ADR-001-mutation-testing-tool.md
│   └── ADR-002-test-selection-criteria.md
├── voc/
│   ├── interview-notes-dev1.md
│   └── interview-notes-dev2.md
└── retrospective/
    └── retrospective-notes.md
```

**Access Control**: Public (open source project)

**Retention**: Indefinite (historical record)

---

## Review and Continuous Improvement

### Communication Plan Review

**Frequency**: Weekly (during status report preparation)

**Review Questions**:
1. Are stakeholders receiving the information they need?
2. Are response time SLAs being met?
3. Are escalations being resolved effectively?
4. Is communication frequency appropriate (too much/too little)?
5. Are stakeholders engaged and satisfied?

**Adjustment Process**:
- Identify communication gaps or inefficiencies
- Propose adjustments (frequency, format, audience)
- Get Tech Lead approval for major changes
- Implement and monitor effectiveness

### End-of-Project Retrospective

**Timing**: Week 4, Day 23

**Attendees**: All primary stakeholders

**Agenda**:
1. **Communication Effectiveness**
   - What worked well?
   - What could be improved?
   - Lessons learned

2. **Stakeholder Feedback**
   - Survey results
   - Qualitative feedback

3. **Process Improvements**
   - Recommendations for future projects
   - Template updates

**Deliverable**: Retrospective notes (stored in `communications/retrospective/`)

---

## Approval and Sign-Off

**Prepared By**: Task Orchestrator Agent (Communication Lead)
**Date Prepared**: 2025-12-11

**Reviewed By**:
- [ ] System Architect: _____________________  Date: __________
- [ ] Project Sponsor: _____________________  Date: __________
- [ ] Tech Lead: _____________________  Date: __________

**Communication Plan Status**: Draft → Pending Approval → Approved
**Current Status**: Draft (awaiting stakeholder review)

---

## References

- **Project Charter**: `PROJECT_CHARTER.md`
- **Risk Management Plan**: `RISK_MANAGEMENT_PLAN.md` (TBD)
- **MGPP**: `PROJECT_CHARTER.md` (Section: Multi-Generational Product Plan)
- **DfLSS Methodology**: `.claude/commands/dflss-dmedi-design-process.md`

---

**Document Control**:
- **Version**: 1.0
- **Last Updated**: 2025-12-11
- **Next Review**: 2025-12-14 (End of Week 1 - Define Phase)
- **Owner**: Task Orchestrator Agent
- **Status**: Draft

---

**End of Communication Plan**
