# Risk Management Plan with FMEA Integration
# Feature 004: Test Quality Audit and Performance Optimization

**Project ID**: 004-optimize-test-concurrency
**Created**: 2025-12-11
**Status**: Active
**Owner**: System Architect Agent
**Methodology**: Design FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis)

---

## Executive Summary

This Risk Management Plan uses **FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis)** to proactively identify, assess, and mitigate risks before they occur in the test optimization project. The plan covers all risk categories: **technical, schedule, quality, and business risks**.

**Key Findings**:
- **22 identified risks** across 4 categories (technical, schedule, quality, business)
- **8 High RPN risks** requiring immediate mitigation (RPN ≥ 100)
- **Primary risk**: False positives more widespread than expected (RPN: 240)
- **Mitigation focus**: Phase approach, early detection, fallback strategies

**FMEA Scoring System**:
- **Severity (S)**: 1-10 (10 = catastrophic, 1 = negligible)
- **Occurrence (O)**: 1-10 (10 = very high, 1 = remote)
- **Detection (D)**: 1-10 (10 = very low detection, 1 = very high detection)
- **RPN (Risk Priority Number)**: S × O × D (max: 1000)

**RPN Risk Levels**:
- **Critical**: RPN ≥ 200 (immediate action required)
- **High**: RPN 100-199 (priority mitigation)
- **Medium**: RPN 40-99 (monitor and plan)
- **Low**: RPN < 40 (track and accept)

---

## Table of Contents

1. [Design FMEA - Test Optimization](#design-fmea---test-optimization)
2. [Risk Register](#risk-register)
3. [Risk Response Strategies](#risk-response-strategies)
4. [Risk Monitoring and Control](#risk-monitoring-and-control)
5. [Contingency Plans](#contingency-plans)
6. [Risk Communication Plan](#risk-communication-plan)

---

## Design FMEA - Test Optimization

### FMEA Analysis Context

**System**: Test Suite Optimization (Gen 1)
**Subsystem**: Test Quality Audit + Performance Optimization
**FMEA Type**: Design FMEA (DFMEA)
**FMEA Date**: 2025-12-11
**FMEA Team**: System Architect, Code Analyzer, Production Validator, Performance Benchmarker

### FMEA Table

| ID | Failure Mode | Potential Effects | Severity (S) | Potential Causes | Occurrence (O) | Current Controls | Detection (D) | RPN | Recommended Actions | Responsibility | Target RPN |
|----|-------------|-------------------|--------------|------------------|----------------|------------------|---------------|-----|---------------------|----------------|------------|
| **TECHNICAL RISKS** |
| T-001 | Parallel execution causes race conditions | Flaky tests, false positives, loss of trust in optimized suite | 9 | Shared state between tests, hidden dependencies, global mutable state | 6 | Manual code review, isolated test functions | 5 | **270** | 1. Comprehensive dependency analysis<br>2. Run tests 100+ times to detect flakiness<br>3. Implement test isolation verification<br>4. Fallback to serial for problematic tests | Backend Dev | 54 (S9×O2×D3) |
| T-002 | False positives more widespread than expected (80%+) | Timeline extension, resource overload, incomplete fixes | 8 | Systemic poor test design, lack of assertion best practices, evolution over time | 8 | ggen.toml example, historical patterns | 4 | **256** | 1. Phase approach: Critical paths first (P0)<br>2. 80/20 principle: Fix top 20% critical tests<br>3. Allocate buffer time (Week 4 overflow)<br>4. Create backlog for incremental fixes | Code Analyzer | 64 (S8×O4×D2) |
| T-003 | Mutation testing reveals low kill rate (<50%) | Requires extensive test rewriting, timeline delay, reduced confidence | 7 | Weak assertions, execution-only tests, poor edge case coverage | 7 | Unknown baseline, ggen.toml precedent | 5 | **245** | 1. Start with 10-20 test sample (scope estimation)<br>2. Focus on critical paths first<br>3. Accept initial 60% kill rate, improve iteratively<br>4. Create mutation improvement backlog | Tester | 84 (S7×O4×D3) |
| T-004 | Performance budget violations (tests inherently slow) | Fails to meet ≤11s target, reduced productivity gains | 6 | I/O-heavy tests, complex setup/teardown, external dependencies | 6 | Unknown slow test distribution | 4 | **144** | 1. Early identification in audit phase<br>2. Optimize test setup/teardown<br>3. Relax budget to ≤15s if necessary (still 88% improvement)<br>4. Split into fast (local) and slow (CI-only) suites | Performance Benchmarker | 48 (S6×O2×D4) |
| T-005 | 80/20 selection misses critical bug detection tests | Production bugs slip through optimized suite, erosion of trust | 9 | Incomplete test value scoring, edge case coverage gaps, evolving codebase | 4 | Full suite backup in CI/CD, quarterly review | 6 | **216** | 1. Data-driven selection criteria (failure frequency + coverage)<br>2. Full suite continues in CI/CD (safety net)<br>3. Track defects caught (optimized vs full suite)<br>4. Monthly review and adjustment | Task Orchestrator | 54 (S9×O2×D3) |
| T-006 | Flaky tests introduced by parallelization | Developers ignore test failures, suite becomes unreliable | 8 | Non-deterministic tests, timing issues, resource contention | 5 | Dependency analysis, isolation verification | 4 | **160** | 1. Run tests 100+ times before declaring stable<br>2. Gradual rollout (isolated tests first)<br>3. Exclude flaky tests until fixed<br>4. Serial execution fallback | Backend Dev | 48 (S8×O2×D3) |
| T-007 | Tool development overhead (mutation testing, audit tools) | Timeline extension, reduced automation, manual effort increase | 5 | Tool complexity, integration challenges, learning curve | 6 | Use existing tools (cargo-mutants, cargo-nextest) | 3 | **90** | 1. Prioritize existing tools over custom<br>2. Simple regex-based audit initially<br>3. Parallel tool development (multiple agents)<br>4. Manual audit fallback for subset | Backend Dev | 30 (S5×O2×D3) |
| T-008 | Dependency analysis reveals circular/complex dependencies | Cannot safely parallelize tests, fails to meet speed targets | 7 | Legacy test design, tight coupling, shared fixtures | 4 | Unknown dependency graph | 6 | **168** | 1. Early dependency graph analysis (Explore phase)<br>2. Refactor high-value tests to break dependencies<br>3. Accept serial execution for tightly coupled tests<br>4. Incremental parallelization | System Architect | 56 (S7×O2×D4) |
| **SCHEDULE RISKS** |
| S-001 | Test audit takes longer than expected (>4 days) | Delays Explore phase, compresses Develop/Implement time | 6 | Larger test suite than estimated (~1240 tests), complex assertion analysis | 6 | Automated tooling, parallel agent execution | 4 | **144** | 1. Incremental audit (critical paths first)<br>2. Parallel analysis by multiple Code Analyzer agents<br>3. Simplified initial classification<br>4. Time-box audit to 4 days, defer deep analysis | Code Analyzer | 48 (S6×O2×D4) |
| S-002 | Fixing false positives extends beyond Week 2-3 | Delays implementation, risks missing 4-week deadline | 7 | More false positives than expected, complex fixes required | 6 | Phase approach, prioritization | 5 | **210** | 1. Focus on P0 critical paths only in Gen 1<br>2. Create P1/P2 backlog for Gen 2<br>3. Accept partial fix for non-critical paths<br>4. Extend to 5 weeks if sponsor approves | Task Orchestrator | 70 (S7×O2×D5) |
| S-003 | Mutation testing iteration cycles delay Develop phase | Compresses Implement phase, risks incomplete validation | 5 | Low initial kill rate, multiple fix-test cycles | 5 | Iterative approach, incremental improvement | 4 | **100** | 1. Limit mutation testing to critical paths (P0)<br>2. Accept 60% kill rate for Gen 1<br>3. Defer comprehensive mutation to Gen 2<br>4. Time-box mutation iterations | Tester | 40 (S5×O2×D4) |
| S-004 | Parallel execution optimization takes longer than planned | Delays final implementation, risks missing timeline | 6 | Complex dependency resolution, tool configuration | 4 | Use cargo-nextest (proven tool), gradual rollout | 5 | **120** | 1. Start with simple parallelization (no dependencies)<br>2. Incremental complexity (dependency-aware later)<br>3. Accept sequential execution for complex tests<br>4. Defer advanced optimizations to Gen 2 | Backend Dev | 48 (S6×O2×D4) |
| **QUALITY RISKS** |
| Q-001 | Optimized suite has lower defect detection than target (60% vs 80%) | Reduced confidence, production bugs escape, need to expand suite | 8 | Poor test value scoring, incomplete coverage analysis | 5 | Track defects over 90-day window, quarterly review | 4 | **160** | 1. Conservative selection criteria (prefer over-inclusion)<br>2. Full suite backup in CI/CD<br>3. Monthly defect tracking and adjustment<br>4. Add missed tests back to optimized suite | Production Validator | 64 (S8×O2×D4) |
| Q-002 | Mutation kill rate remains low after fixes (<60%) | Tests still don't validate behavior, trust not established | 9 | Deep structural issues in test design, requires rewrites | 4 | Incremental improvement, critical path focus | 6 | **216** | 1. Accept 60% kill rate for Gen 1<br>2. Focus on P0 critical paths achieving 80%+<br>3. Create test rewrite backlog for Gen 2<br>4. Gradual improvement over generations | Tester | 72 (S9×O2×D4) |
| Q-003 | False positives reintroduced by new code | Erosion of quality gains, requires continuous monitoring | 7 | Lack of test writing guidelines, developer education gaps | 6 | Pre-commit hooks, code review | 3 | **126** | 1. Create test assertion best practices guide<br>2. Add assertion strength checks to pre-commit<br>3. Developer training on behavior validation<br>4. Quarterly test quality audits | Code Analyzer | 42 (S7×O2×D3) |
| Q-004 | Test flakiness increases over time (>5%) | Developers ignore failures, suite becomes unreliable | 8 | Non-deterministic behavior, timing issues, environment drift | 4 | Flakiness monitoring, 100+ run validation | 5 | **160** | 1. Continuous flakiness monitoring (daily)<br>2. Automatic quarantine of flaky tests<br>3. Root cause analysis for flaky tests<br>4. Zero-tolerance policy (exclude until fixed) | Production Validator | 48 (S8×O3×D2) |
| **BUSINESS RISKS** |
| B-001 | Developer resistance to optimized suite adoption | Low adoption rate, continued use of slow full suite | 6 | Distrust of new suite, workflow disruption, learning curve | 4 | Clear communication, gradual rollout, opt-in initially | 4 | **96** | 1. Clear value proposition (faster, more trustworthy)<br>2. Opt-in beta phase with early adopters<br>3. Documentation and training<br>4. Maintain full suite option temporarily | Task Orchestrator | 32 (S6×O2×D3) |
| B-002 | Stakeholder expectations exceed Gen 1 capabilities | Disappointment, perceived failure despite meeting charter goals | 5 | Misaligned expectations, communication gaps | 5 | Clear MGPP definition, regular updates | 3 | **75** | 1. Clear communication of Gen 1 scope and limitations<br>2. Highlight Gen 2/3 roadmap<br>3. Weekly status updates with metrics<br>4. Manage expectations proactively | Task Orchestrator | 30 (S5×O2×D3) |
| B-003 | Production defect slips through optimized suite, damages trust | Project perceived as failure, rollback to full suite | 9 | Incomplete test selection, edge case gaps, evolving codebase | 3 | Full suite backup in CI/CD, quarterly review | 5 | **135** | 1. Full suite ALWAYS runs in CI/CD (mandatory)<br>2. Optimized suite for local dev only initially<br>3. Track all defects and root cause<br>4. Rapid response to add missed tests | Production Validator | 45 (S9×O1×D5) |
| B-004 | Project timeline extends beyond 4 weeks, loses sponsor support | Resource withdrawal, incomplete implementation | 7 | False positive scope explosion, technical challenges | 5 | Phase approach, 80/20 prioritization | 4 | **140** | 1. Weekly status updates with timeline projections<br>2. Phase approach enables partial delivery<br>3. Request extension early if needed (Week 2 checkpoint)<br>4. Deliver Gen 1 MVP even if incomplete | Task Orchestrator | 56 (S7×O2×D4) |
| B-005 | Opportunity cost of 4 weeks development time not justified by gains | ROI questioned, project value debated | 6 | Benefits not realized (speed gains, quality improvements), poor communication | 4 | Track productivity metrics, developer surveys | 5 | **120** | 1. Quantify benefits (time saved, bugs caught)<br>2. Developer survey before/after (satisfaction, productivity)<br>3. Track production defect reduction (90-day window)<br>4. Monthly ROI reporting | Task Orchestrator | 48 (S6×O2×D4) |

---

## Risk Register

### Critical Risks (RPN ≥ 200)

| Risk ID | Risk Name | RPN | Status | Owner |
|---------|-----------|-----|--------|-------|
| **T-001** | Parallel execution race conditions | 270 | Active | Backend Dev |
| **T-002** | False positives more widespread | 256 | Active | Code Analyzer |
| **T-003** | Low mutation kill rate | 245 | Active | Tester |
| **T-005** | 80/20 selection misses critical tests | 216 | Active | Task Orchestrator |
| **Q-002** | Mutation kill rate remains low | 216 | Active | Tester |
| **S-002** | False positive fixes extend timeline | 210 | Active | Task Orchestrator |

### High Risks (RPN 100-199)

| Risk ID | Risk Name | RPN | Status | Owner |
|---------|-----------|-----|--------|-------|
| **T-008** | Complex dependencies prevent parallelization | 168 | Active | System Architect |
| **T-006** | Flaky tests from parallelization | 160 | Active | Backend Dev |
| **Q-001** | Lower defect detection than target | 160 | Active | Production Validator |
| **Q-004** | Test flakiness increases over time | 160 | Active | Production Validator |
| **T-004** | Performance budget violations | 144 | Active | Performance Benchmarker |
| **S-001** | Test audit takes too long | 144 | Active | Code Analyzer |
| **B-004** | Timeline extends beyond 4 weeks | 140 | Active | Task Orchestrator |
| **B-003** | Production defect damages trust | 135 | Active | Production Validator |
| **Q-003** | False positives reintroduced | 126 | Active | Code Analyzer |
| **S-004** | Parallel optimization delays | 120 | Active | Backend Dev |
| **B-005** | ROI questioned | 120 | Active | Task Orchestrator |
| **S-003** | Mutation testing delays Develop phase | 100 | Active | Tester |

### Medium Risks (RPN 40-99)

| Risk ID | Risk Name | RPN | Status | Owner |
|---------|-----------|-----|--------|-------|
| **B-001** | Developer resistance | 96 | Active | Task Orchestrator |
| **T-007** | Tool development overhead | 90 | Active | Backend Dev |
| **B-002** | Stakeholder expectations exceed Gen 1 | 75 | Active | Task Orchestrator |

### Low Risks (RPN < 40)

No low risks identified. All 22 risks have RPN ≥ 75, indicating this is a high-risk project requiring active management.

---

## Risk Response Strategies

### Strategy Framework

**Avoid**: Eliminate the risk entirely by changing the plan
**Mitigate**: Reduce probability or impact to acceptable levels
**Transfer**: Shift the risk to a third party or system
**Accept**: Acknowledge the risk and monitor (with contingency plan)

---

### Critical Risk Responses (RPN ≥ 200)

#### T-001: Parallel Execution Race Conditions (RPN: 270)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (reduce occurrence and detection)

**Actions**:
1. **Comprehensive Dependency Analysis** (Week 2 - Explore Phase)
   - Map all test dependencies (shared state, global variables, file system)
   - Identify tests that MUST run serially
   - Create dependency graph visualization

2. **Flakiness Detection Protocol** (Week 3 - Develop Phase)
   - Run each test 100+ times before declaring stable
   - Track pass/fail consistency (100% required for optimized suite)
   - Quarantine flaky tests immediately

3. **Gradual Rollout** (Week 4 - Implement Phase)
   - Start with isolated unit tests (no dependencies)
   - Expand to integration tests with known isolation
   - Fallback to serial execution for problematic tests

4. **Test Isolation Verification** (Ongoing)
   - Pre-commit hook checks for shared state
   - Code review checklist for test isolation
   - Developer guidelines on test independence

**Success Metric**: 0% flaky tests in optimized suite (run 100+ times each)

**Contingency**: If flakiness >5%, fallback to serial execution for affected tests, exclude from optimized suite until fixed

**Target RPN**: 54 (S9×O2×D3) - Reduced occurrence and detection

---

#### T-002: False Positives More Widespread (RPN: 256)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (reduce impact through phasing)

**Actions**:
1. **Phase Approach** (Week 1-4)
   - **P0 (Week 2)**: Fix ggen.toml and critical RDF/ontology/codegen paths
   - **P1 (Week 3)**: Fix high-value 80/20 tests
   - **P2 (Gen 2)**: Backlog remaining false positives for incremental improvement

2. **80/20 Principle** (Week 2)
   - Focus on top 20% of tests that cover 80% of critical functionality
   - Accept incomplete coverage in Gen 1, improve in Gen 2/3
   - Prioritize by criticality: Production impact > Usage frequency > Coverage

3. **Buffer Time Allocation** (Week 4)
   - Reserve Week 4 for overflow (false positive fixes)
   - Compress Implement phase if necessary
   - Extend to Week 5 if sponsor approves

4. **Backlog Creation** (Week 3)
   - Document all identified false positives
   - Create P1/P2 backlog for Gen 2 improvements
   - Estimate effort for incremental fixes

**Success Metric**: 100% of P0 critical paths have behavior-validating tests (no false positives)

**Contingency**: If false positives >90%, extend timeline to 5 weeks with sponsor approval, defer P1/P2 to Gen 2

**Target RPN**: 64 (S8×O4×D2) - Reduced occurrence through prioritization, improved detection

---

#### T-003: Low Mutation Kill Rate (RPN: 245)

**Strategy**: **ACCEPT** (with mitigation and incremental improvement)

**Actions**:
1. **Scope Estimation** (Week 2 - Measure Phase)
   - Start with 10-20 test sample for mutation testing
   - Measure baseline kill rate on critical paths
   - Estimate effort for 80%+ kill rate

2. **Critical Path Focus** (Week 2-3)
   - Run mutation testing on P0 paths only (ggen.toml, RDF, ontology, codegen)
   - Target 80%+ kill rate on critical paths, accept lower overall
   - Defer comprehensive mutation to Gen 2

3. **Iterative Improvement** (Gen 1 → Gen 2)
   - Accept 60% kill rate for Gen 1 (better than unknown baseline)
   - Create mutation improvement backlog
   - Achieve 80%+ in Gen 2, 90%+ in Gen 3

4. **Fallback Plan** (Week 3)
   - If kill rate <50%, rewrite tests for critical paths only
   - Defer non-critical path improvements
   - Focus on behavior validation over mutation score

**Success Metric**: 80%+ mutation kill rate on P0 critical paths (ggen.toml, RDF, ontology, codegen)

**Contingency**: If kill rate <50%, accept Gen 1 as baseline, focus improvement on Gen 2, rewrite critical path tests only

**Target RPN**: 84 (S7×O4×D3) - Reduced occurrence through incremental approach

---

#### T-005: 80/20 Selection Misses Critical Tests (RPN: 216)

**Strategy**: **TRANSFER** (shift risk to CI/CD full suite backup)

**Actions**:
1. **Data-Driven Selection** (Week 2 - Measure Phase)
   - Score tests by: Failure frequency + Code coverage + Execution speed
   - Prefer critical path tests (RDF, ontology, codegen, ggen.toml)
   - Conservative criteria: Include borderline tests (prefer over-inclusion)

2. **Full Suite Backup** (Week 4 - Implement Phase)
   - **Mandatory**: Full ~1240-test suite ALWAYS runs in CI/CD
   - Optimized 200-test suite for local dev only (fast feedback)
   - CI/CD catches defects missed by optimized suite

3. **Defect Tracking** (Post-implementation)
   - Track all defects caught by CI/CD full suite
   - Monthly review: Which defects did optimized suite miss?
   - Adjust selection criteria and add missed tests

4. **Quarterly Review** (Ongoing)
   - Review optimized suite effectiveness every 3 months
   - Compare defect detection: Optimized vs Full suite
   - Target: 80%+ defects caught by optimized suite

**Success Metric**: 80%+ of defects caught by optimized 200-test suite (measured over 90-day window)

**Contingency**: If detection <70%, expand optimized suite to 300 tests, continue monthly reviews, adjust selection criteria

**Target RPN**: 54 (S9×O2×D3) - Risk transferred to CI/CD, reduced occurrence through data-driven selection

---

#### Q-002: Mutation Kill Rate Remains Low (RPN: 216)

**Strategy**: **ACCEPT** (with multi-generation improvement plan)

**Actions**:
1. **Gen 1 Baseline** (Week 2-3)
   - Accept 60% kill rate as Gen 1 baseline (improvement over unknown)
   - Focus on critical paths achieving 80%+ (ggen.toml, RDF, ontology, codegen)
   - Document mutation survivals for Gen 2 backlog

2. **Test Rewrite Backlog** (Week 3)
   - Identify tests with weak assertions (mutation survivals)
   - Prioritize by criticality (P0 > P1 > P2)
   - Estimate effort for test rewrites

3. **Multi-Generation Improvement** (Gen 1 → Gen 2 → Gen 3)
   - **Gen 1**: 60% overall, 80%+ critical paths
   - **Gen 2**: 80%+ overall (comprehensive mutation testing)
   - **Gen 3**: 90%+ overall (property-based testing, fuzzing)

4. **Developer Education** (Week 4 - Implement Phase)
   - Create test assertion best practices guide
   - Examples of strong vs weak assertions
   - Mutation testing in pre-commit (future enhancement)

**Success Metric**: 80%+ mutation kill rate on P0 critical paths in Gen 1

**Contingency**: If critical path kill rate <70%, rewrite critical tests, defer comprehensive mutation to Gen 2

**Target RPN**: 72 (S9×O2×D4) - Reduced occurrence through incremental improvement

---

#### S-002: False Positive Fixes Extend Timeline (RPN: 210)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (reduce impact through phasing)

**Actions**:
1. **P0 Critical Path Focus** (Week 2-3)
   - Fix false positives in P0 critical paths ONLY
   - ggen.toml, RDF parsing, ontology projection, code generation
   - Create P1/P2 backlog for Gen 2

2. **Partial Fix Acceptance** (Week 3-4)
   - Accept incomplete fixes for non-critical paths
   - Document remaining false positives in backlog
   - Prioritize by production impact

3. **Timeline Extension Trigger** (Week 2 Checkpoint)
   - If P0 fixes >5 days, request 1-week extension
   - Early communication with sponsor (don't wait until Week 4)
   - Present trade-offs: Extend vs Defer to Gen 2

4. **Parallel Workstreams** (Week 3)
   - Code Analyzer agents fix false positives
   - Backend Dev agent works on parallel execution
   - Task Orchestrator coordinates overlap

**Success Metric**: 100% of P0 false positives fixed within 4-week timeline

**Contingency**: If timeline extends beyond Week 4, deliver Gen 1 MVP with P0 complete, defer P1/P2 to Gen 2, extend to Week 5 with sponsor approval

**Target RPN**: 70 (S7×O2×D5) - Reduced occurrence through phasing

---

### High Risk Responses (RPN 100-199)

*(Abbreviated - full details available on request)*

#### T-008: Complex Dependencies Prevent Parallelization (RPN: 168)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (early analysis and refactoring)

**Actions**:
1. Early dependency graph analysis (Explore phase)
2. Refactor high-value tests to break dependencies
3. Accept serial execution for tightly coupled tests
4. Incremental parallelization (isolated tests first)

**Target RPN**: 56 (S7×O2×D4)

---

#### T-006: Flaky Tests from Parallelization (RPN: 160)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (gradual rollout with flakiness monitoring)

**Actions**:
1. Run tests 100+ times before declaring stable
2. Gradual rollout (isolated tests first, expand carefully)
3. Exclude flaky tests until fixed
4. Serial execution fallback for problematic tests

**Target RPN**: 48 (S8×O2×D3)

---

#### Q-001: Lower Defect Detection Than Target (RPN: 160)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (conservative selection, full suite backup)

**Actions**:
1. Conservative selection criteria (prefer over-inclusion)
2. Full suite backup in CI/CD (mandatory)
3. Monthly defect tracking and adjustment
4. Add missed tests back to optimized suite

**Target RPN**: 64 (S8×O2×D4)

---

#### Q-004: Test Flakiness Increases Over Time (RPN: 160)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (continuous monitoring and zero-tolerance policy)

**Actions**:
1. Continuous flakiness monitoring (daily)
2. Automatic quarantine of flaky tests (>1% failure rate)
3. Root cause analysis for all flaky tests
4. Zero-tolerance policy (exclude until fixed)

**Target RPN**: 48 (S8×O3×D2)

---

#### T-004: Performance Budget Violations (RPN: 144)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (early identification and optimization)

**Actions**:
1. Early identification in audit phase (Week 1)
2. Optimize test setup/teardown (reduce I/O, caching)
3. Relax budget to ≤15s if necessary (still 88% improvement)
4. Split into fast (local) and slow (CI-only) suites

**Target RPN**: 48 (S6×O2×D4)

---

#### S-001: Test Audit Takes Too Long (RPN: 144)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (incremental audit and time-boxing)

**Actions**:
1. Incremental audit (critical paths first)
2. Parallel analysis by multiple Code Analyzer agents
3. Simplified initial classification (behavior vs execution)
4. Time-box audit to 4 days, defer deep analysis

**Target RPN**: 48 (S6×O2×D4)

---

#### B-004: Timeline Extends Beyond 4 Weeks (RPN: 140)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (weekly checkpoints and early escalation)

**Actions**:
1. Weekly status updates with timeline projections
2. Phase approach enables partial delivery
3. Request extension early (Week 2 checkpoint)
4. Deliver Gen 1 MVP even if incomplete

**Target RPN**: 56 (S7×O2×D4)

---

#### B-003: Production Defect Damages Trust (RPN: 135)

**Strategy**: **TRANSFER** (full suite backup in CI/CD)

**Actions**:
1. Full suite ALWAYS runs in CI/CD (mandatory)
2. Optimized suite for local dev only initially
3. Track all defects and root cause
4. Rapid response to add missed tests

**Target RPN**: 45 (S9×O1×D5)

---

#### Q-003: False Positives Reintroduced (RPN: 126)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (developer education and pre-commit checks)

**Actions**:
1. Create test assertion best practices guide
2. Add assertion strength checks to pre-commit
3. Developer training on behavior validation
4. Quarterly test quality audits

**Target RPN**: 42 (S7×O2×D3)

---

#### S-004: Parallel Optimization Delays (RPN: 120)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (incremental complexity)

**Actions**:
1. Start with simple parallelization (no dependencies)
2. Incremental complexity (dependency-aware later)
3. Accept sequential execution for complex tests
4. Defer advanced optimizations to Gen 2

**Target RPN**: 48 (S6×O2×D4)

---

#### B-005: ROI Questioned (RPN: 120)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (quantify benefits and communicate value)

**Actions**:
1. Quantify benefits (time saved, bugs caught, productivity)
2. Developer survey before/after (satisfaction, productivity)
3. Track production defect reduction (90-day window)
4. Monthly ROI reporting to stakeholders

**Target RPN**: 48 (S6×O2×D4)

---

#### S-003: Mutation Testing Delays Develop Phase (RPN: 100)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (time-boxing and critical path focus)

**Actions**:
1. Limit mutation testing to critical paths (P0)
2. Accept 60% kill rate for Gen 1
3. Defer comprehensive mutation to Gen 2
4. Time-box mutation iterations (2 days max)

**Target RPN**: 40 (S5×O2×D4)

---

### Medium Risk Responses (RPN 40-99)

#### B-001: Developer Resistance (RPN: 96)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (clear communication and gradual rollout)

**Actions**:
1. Clear value proposition (faster, more trustworthy)
2. Opt-in beta phase with early adopters
3. Documentation and training
4. Maintain full suite option temporarily

**Target RPN**: 32 (S6×O2×D3)

---

#### T-007: Tool Development Overhead (RPN: 90)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (prioritize existing tools)

**Actions**:
1. Prioritize existing tools (cargo-mutants, cargo-nextest)
2. Simple regex-based audit initially
3. Parallel tool development (multiple agents)
4. Manual audit fallback for subset

**Target RPN**: 30 (S5×O2×D3)

---

#### B-002: Stakeholder Expectations Exceed Gen 1 (RPN: 75)

**Strategy**: **MITIGATE** (clear communication of scope)

**Actions**:
1. Clear communication of Gen 1 scope and limitations
2. Highlight Gen 2/3 roadmap (MGPP)
3. Weekly status updates with metrics
4. Manage expectations proactively

**Target RPN**: 30 (S5×O2×D3)

---

## Risk Monitoring and Control

### Risk Monitoring Process

**Daily**:
- **Standup**: Review active risks with Red/Yellow/Green status
- **Andon Signals**: STOP work if Critical risk (RPN ≥ 200) materializes
- **Flakiness Monitoring**: Check for new flaky tests (>1% failure rate)

**Weekly**:
- **Risk Review**: Update RPN scores based on new information
- **Status Report**: Communicate risk status to stakeholders
- **Mitigation Progress**: Track action item completion

**Phase Gates**:
- **End of Define (Day 3)**: Risk management plan approved
- **End of Measure (Day 7)**: Baseline risks validated (false positive scope confirmed)
- **End of Explore (Day 10)**: Design risks mitigated (dependency analysis complete)
- **End of Develop (Day 15)**: Implementation risks assessed (prototype results)
- **End of Implement (Day 23)**: Final risk review (Gen 1 readiness)

### Risk Escalation Triggers

**Immediate Escalation** (Stop the Line):
- Any Critical risk (RPN ≥ 200) materializes
- P0 critical path false positives exceed 50% of tests
- Flakiness exceeds 5% of optimized suite
- Timeline extends beyond Week 4 without mitigation

**Weekly Escalation**:
- Any High risk (RPN 100-199) shows increasing trend
- Mitigation actions not reducing RPN as planned
- New risks emerge with RPN ≥ 100

### Risk Tracking Dashboard

| Risk ID | Current RPN | Target RPN | Trend | Status | Next Action |
|---------|-------------|------------|-------|--------|-------------|
| T-001 | 270 | 54 | ⬇️ Mitigating | Active | Dependency analysis Week 2 |
| T-002 | 256 | 64 | ⬇️ Mitigating | Active | P0 focus Week 2-3 |
| T-003 | 245 | 84 | ⬇️ Mitigating | Active | 10-20 test sample Week 2 |
| T-005 | 216 | 54 | ⬇️ Mitigating | Active | Define selection criteria Week 2 |
| Q-002 | 216 | 72 | ⬇️ Accepting | Active | Accept 60% Gen 1, improve Gen 2 |
| S-002 | 210 | 70 | ⬇️ Mitigating | Active | P0 prioritization Week 2 |

*(Continue for all 22 risks)*

---

## Contingency Plans

### Major Contingency Scenarios

#### Scenario 1: False Positives Exceed 90% of Test Suite

**Trigger**: Test audit (Week 1) reveals >90% false positives

**Impact**: Timeline extends to 6-8 weeks, resource overload

**Response**:
1. **Immediate**: Request 2-week timeline extension from sponsor
2. **Phase Approach**:
   - Week 1-2: Fix ggen.toml + RDF parsing ONLY
   - Week 3-4: Fix ontology projection + code generation
   - Week 5-6: 80/20 selection and optimization
3. **Defer to Gen 2**: All non-critical path false positives
4. **Stakeholder Communication**: Weekly updates, reset expectations

**Fallback**: If 6-week timeline rejected, deliver Gen 1 MVP with P0 only (ggen.toml, RDF), defer rest to Gen 2

---

#### Scenario 2: Mutation Kill Rate <40% on Critical Paths

**Trigger**: Mutation testing (Week 2) shows <40% kill rate on P0 critical paths

**Impact**: Tests fundamentally don't validate behavior, requires extensive rewrites

**Response**:
1. **Immediate**: Escalate to tech lead for architectural decision
2. **Options**:
   - **Option A**: Rewrite P0 critical tests from scratch (extends timeline 1-2 weeks)
   - **Option B**: Accept 40% as Gen 1 baseline, create comprehensive rewrite plan for Gen 2
   - **Option C**: Hybrid: Rewrite ggen.toml test only, accept low kill rate for others
3. **Decision Criteria**: Tech lead decides based on production risk tolerance
4. **Gen 2 Plan**: Comprehensive test rewrite with 80%+ mutation kill rate target

**Fallback**: Accept low kill rate, focus on fixing ggen.toml false positive, defer mutation improvement to Gen 2/3

---

#### Scenario 3: Parallelization Introduces >10% Flakiness

**Trigger**: Parallel execution (Week 3) causes >10% of tests to become flaky

**Impact**: Optimized suite unreliable, fails to meet quality targets

**Response**:
1. **Immediate**: Rollback to serial execution for all tests
2. **Root Cause Analysis**:
   - Identify shared state and dependencies
   - Categorize tests: Parallelizable vs Must-Be-Serial
3. **Hybrid Approach**:
   - Parallelize isolated unit tests only (~60% of suite)
   - Serial execution for integration tests with dependencies
   - Accept slower execution (≤20 seconds vs ≤11 seconds)
4. **Gen 2 Plan**: Refactor tests to break dependencies, achieve full parallelization

**Fallback**: Abandon parallel execution for Gen 1, achieve ≤30 seconds with serial execution (still 80%+ improvement)

---

#### Scenario 4: 80/20 Selection Detects <60% of Bugs

**Trigger**: Post-implementation tracking (Month 1) shows optimized suite catches <60% of defects

**Impact**: Optimized suite not trustworthy, requires expansion

**Response**:
1. **Immediate**: Root cause analysis of missed defects
2. **Expand Suite**: Add missed tests to optimized suite (increase from 200 to 300 tests)
3. **Adjust Selection Criteria**:
   - Increase weight on failure frequency
   - Add edge case coverage metric
   - Include integration tests for missed scenarios
4. **Re-validate**: Track defect detection over next 30 days

**Fallback**: If expansion to 300 tests still <70% detection, expand to 400 tests (accept slower ≤20s execution)

---

#### Scenario 5: Timeline Extends Beyond 4 Weeks, Sponsor Withdraws Support

**Trigger**: Week 2 checkpoint reveals 6-week timeline required, sponsor denies extension

**Impact**: Project must complete in 4 weeks or cancel

**Response**:
1. **Immediate**: Reduce scope to absolute minimum viable Gen 1
2. **Minimum Viable Gen 1**:
   - Fix ggen.toml false positive ONLY (Week 1-2)
   - Create test quality audit report (Week 1)
   - Basic parallel execution (Week 3-4, no dependency analysis)
   - Target: ≤30 seconds combined execution (50%+ improvement vs 82%)
3. **Defer to Gen 2**:
   - Comprehensive false positive fixes
   - Mutation testing
   - Advanced parallelization
   - 200-test optimization
4. **Deliver Value**: Even minimal Gen 1 fixes critical ggen.toml bug, improves speed

**Fallback**: If minimal Gen 1 rejected, cancel project, document lessons learned for future attempt

---

## Risk Communication Plan

### Stakeholder Communication Matrix

| Stakeholder | Risk Level | Frequency | Method | Content |
|-------------|------------|-----------|--------|---------|
| **Project Sponsor** | Critical (RPN ≥ 200) | Immediate | Direct message | Risk materialized, impact, mitigation plan, decision needed |
| | High (RPN 100-199) | Weekly | Status report | Risk status, RPN trend, mitigation progress |
| | Medium/Low (RPN < 100) | Bi-weekly | Status report | Risk register summary |
| **Tech Lead** | Critical/High | Daily | Standup | Active high-priority risks, blockers, decisions needed |
| | Medium/Low | Weekly | Design review | Full risk register, FMEA updates |
| **Development Team** | Critical (impacting work) | Immediate | Slack/email | Work stoppage, mitigation actions, new approach |
| | High (informational) | Weekly | Standup | Risk awareness, impact on workflow |
| **QA Team** | Critical/High quality risks | Weekly | Status report | Quality risk status, testing impact |

### Risk Communication Templates

#### Critical Risk Alert (RPN ≥ 200 Materialized)

**Subject**: CRITICAL RISK ALERT - [Risk ID] [Risk Name]

**Priority**: High

**Summary**:
- **Risk**: [Risk name and ID]
- **RPN**: [Current RPN]
- **Status**: MATERIALIZED
- **Impact**: [Specific impact on timeline/quality/scope]

**Immediate Actions**:
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]

**Decision Needed**:
- [Specific decision required from stakeholder]
- **Deadline**: [Response deadline]

**Escalation Path**:
- If no response by [deadline], escalate to [next level]

---

#### Weekly Risk Status Report

**Subject**: Feature 004 Risk Status - Week [N]

**Summary**:
- **Active Risks**: [Count by level]
- **New Risks**: [Count]
- **Closed Risks**: [Count]
- **Trend**: [Improving/Stable/Degrading]

**Critical Risks** (RPN ≥ 200):
| Risk ID | Risk Name | Current RPN | Target RPN | Trend | Status |
|---------|-----------|-------------|------------|-------|--------|
| [ID] | [Name] | [RPN] | [Target] | [⬆️⬇️➡️] | [Status] |

**High Risks** (RPN 100-199):
| Risk ID | Risk Name | Current RPN | Target RPN | Trend | Status |
|---------|-----------|-------------|------------|-------|--------|
| [ID] | [Name] | [RPN] | [Target] | [⬆️⬇️➡️] | [Status] |

**Mitigation Progress**:
- [Key mitigation actions completed this week]
- [Actions planned for next week]

**Escalations**:
- [Any risks requiring stakeholder decision]

---

## Risk Lessons Learned (Post-Project)

### Planned Risk Retrospective (Week 5)

**Purpose**: Capture lessons learned for Gen 2/3 and future projects

**Agenda**:
1. **Risk Accuracy**: Which risks materialized? Which didn't?
2. **RPN Calibration**: Were severity/occurrence/detection scores accurate?
3. **Mitigation Effectiveness**: Which mitigations worked? Which didn't?
4. **New Risks**: What risks emerged that weren't predicted?
5. **Improvements**: How to improve risk management for Gen 2?

**Deliverable**: Risk Lessons Learned document for Gen 2 planning

---

## Appendix

### FMEA Scoring Guidelines

#### Severity (S) - Impact of Failure

| Score | Impact | Description |
|-------|--------|-------------|
| 10 | Catastrophic | Production system failure, data loss, security breach |
| 9 | Critical | Major feature broken, significant user impact, trust damaged |
| 8 | High | Important feature degraded, moderate user impact |
| 7 | Moderate | Minor feature broken, low user impact |
| 6 | Low | Cosmetic issue, minimal user impact |
| 5 | Very Low | Internal issue, no user impact |
| 1-4 | Negligible | Minor inconvenience, trivial impact |

#### Occurrence (O) - Likelihood of Failure

| Score | Probability | Description |
|-------|-------------|-------------|
| 10 | Very High | >90% probability, almost certain to occur |
| 9 | High | 70-90% probability, likely to occur |
| 8 | Moderate-High | 50-70% probability, more likely than not |
| 7 | Moderate | 40-50% probability, even odds |
| 6 | Moderate-Low | 30-40% probability, possible |
| 5 | Low | 20-30% probability, unlikely |
| 4 | Very Low | 10-20% probability, remote |
| 3 | Remote | 5-10% probability, very unlikely |
| 2 | Very Remote | 1-5% probability, highly unlikely |
| 1 | Nearly Impossible | <1% probability, almost never occurs |

#### Detection (D) - Ability to Detect Failure

| Score | Detection Capability | Description |
|-------|---------------------|-------------|
| 10 | Very Low | Cannot detect failure before impact |
| 9 | Low | Detected only after significant impact |
| 8 | Moderate-Low | Detected during late-stage testing |
| 7 | Moderate | Detected during integration testing |
| 6 | Moderate-High | Detected during unit testing |
| 5 | High | Detected by automated checks |
| 4 | Very High | Detected by compile-time checks |
| 3 | Extremely High | Detected by continuous monitoring |
| 2 | Near Certain | Detected immediately by alerts |
| 1 | Certain | Impossible to miss (obvious failure) |

---

### Risk Response Strategy Selection Matrix

| Risk Characteristics | Recommended Strategy |
|---------------------|----------------------|
| High S, High O, Low control | **AVOID** - Eliminate risk by changing plan |
| High S, Moderate O, Moderate control | **MITIGATE** - Reduce probability or impact |
| High S, Low O, External cause | **TRANSFER** - Shift to third party/system |
| Low S, Low O, High control | **ACCEPT** - Monitor with contingency |
| High RPN (≥200), Critical path | **MITIGATE** + **TRANSFER** (dual strategy) |
| Medium RPN (40-199), Non-critical | **MITIGATE** or **ACCEPT** based on cost |
| Low RPN (<40), Manageable | **ACCEPT** with monitoring |

---

**Document Control**:
- **Version**: 1.0
- **Last Updated**: 2025-12-11
- **Next Review**: 2025-12-14 (Weekly risk review)
- **Owner**: System Architect Agent
- **Approval**: Pending stakeholder review

---

**End of Risk Management Plan with FMEA Integration**
