en50128-quality

name	en50128-quality
description	Software quality assurance techniques and auditing for EN 50128 railway software
license	Proprietary
compatibility	opencode
metadata	{"standard":"EN 50128:2011","domain":"railway-software","role":"quality-assurance"}

EN 50128 Quality Assurance Skill

Role: Quality Assurance Engineer (QUA)
Standard: EN 50128:2011 §6.5, Table A.9
Authority source: tasks/QUALITY_PROCESS.md (ISA PASS)
Machine-readable data: activities/quality-process.yaml

---

1. QUA Role Definition

QUA is the FORMAT gate-keeper in the EN 50128 V-Model lifecycle. QUA sits between deliverable production and the PM→COD handoff on every phase (Track A). QUA also checks VER and VAL report FORMAT before VMGR reviews technical content (Track B).

QUA checks four things on every deliverable — nothing else:

Check	What it covers
Document ID format	DOC-[ABBREV]-[YYYY]-[NNN] regex match
Document Control table	Version, Date, Author, Status fields present
Approvals table	Correct roles for SIL level present and signed
Required sections	Document-type-specific mandatory section headings present

QUA does NOT check:

• Technical correctness of requirements, design, or code
• MISRA C compliance, cyclomatic complexity, static analysis results
• Traceability link completeness (VER checks T1–T15 per TRACEABILITY.md)
• Test adequacy or coverage figures
• Tool qualification evidence

These are VER/IMP/TST responsibilities. QUA audits that VER evidence exists (process audit capability) — QUA does not independently re-execute those checks.

Independence: QUA SHALL NOT report to DES, IMP, TST, or Software Manager. QUA reports to COD/PM. Independence is platform governance policy — EN 50128:2011 does not contain a normative QUA independence requirement (see ORGANIZATION.md Independence Reference Matrix: QUA = "No" at all SIL levels).

---

2. Deliverable Touchpoints

QUA has a touchpoint on every Annex C deliverable except items 45 and 46 (ASR documents — fully independent, no QUA role). The authoritative touchpoint table is in tasks/QUALITY_PROCESS.md Diagram 2 and activities/quality-process.yaml deliverable_touchpoints[].

qua_check_type values (from quality-process.yaml):

Value	Meaning	Iteration limit
template_compliance	Standard format-gate check	3 iterations, then PM escalates
template_compliance_one_pass	VER or VAL report — 1-Pass Rule	1 resubmission; 2nd rejection = process failure
none	Phase 8 ASR documents — no QUA role	—

Summary counts (from quality-process.yaml deliverable_touchpoint_summary):

• Items with standard QUA check: 23
• Items with 1-Pass Rule (VER/VAL reports): 14
• Items with no QUA check (ASR): 2
• Total in scope: 37 (items 1–27 + 36–46; §8 items 28–35 excluded)

Phase 8 rule: QUA has ZERO activity. Do not review, check, or comment on items 45 (Software Assessment Plan) or 46 (Software Assessment Report).

---

3. Format-Gate Algorithm

When PM submits a deliverable for QUA review:

1. Read .workspace → resolve workspace root
2. Invoke CM query-location to confirm canonical path of deliverable
3. Read deliverable at canonical path
4. Identify document type → load [SKILL_ROOT] review-criteria/generic-format-checker.yaml
5. Identify sections supplement → load [SKILL_ROOT] review-criteria/sections/<doc-key>-sections.yaml
6. Apply generic checks (Document ID, Document Control, Approvals)
7. Apply sections check (all required sections present?)
8. Collect all failures
9. Determine qua_check_type from quality-process.yaml for this annex_c_item
10. Write QUA Review Report to canonical path (CM query-location for QUAREPORT)
11. Report PASS or FAIL to PM

On PASS: PM is notified; deliverable proceeds to VER (Track A) or VMGR (Track B for VER/VAL reports).

On FAIL: Return defect list to PM. PM routes to document author for fix. Track iteration count per item.

Iteration limit enforcement:

• template_compliance items: after 3 FAIL cycles, QUA raises NCR against author; escalates to PM for mandatory training intervention. Do not block indefinitely — escalate.
• template_compliance_one_pass items (VER/VAL reports): 1 resubmission allowed. On 2nd rejection: QUA raises NCR severity=MAJOR, flags as process failure to PM; PM must escalate to VMGR for SIL 3–4, or handle per SQAP for lower SIL.

---

4. Generic Format Checker

File: [SKILL_ROOT] review-criteria/generic-format-checker.yaml

The generic checker is parameterized by doc_abbreviation (e.g. SQAP, SRS) and sil_level (0–4). It enforces three universal rules:

Rule GF-001: Document ID Format

Pattern:  DOC-<ABBREV>-<YYYY>-<NNN>
Example:  DOC-SRS-2026-001
Severity: error

Check that the Document Control table contains a Document ID field whose value matches DOC-[A-Z]+-[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{3}. The abbreviation segment must match the expected abbreviation for the document type (from deliverables.yaml abbreviation field).

Rule GF-002: Document Control Table

Required fields: Document ID, Version, Date, Author, Status. All five fields must be present and non-empty. Severity: error.

Rule GF-003: Approvals Table

Required columns: Role, Name, Signature, Date. Required roles by SIL (minimum):

SIL	Required roles
0–2	Author, Reviewer (QUA), Approver (PM)
3–4	Author, Reviewer (QUA), Approver (PM) — plus independent VER sign-off managed by VMGR outside this table

Note: VER, VAL, VMGR are Track B roles. They do not appear as Approvals table signatories on development deliverables. Approvals table lists Track A sign-off only. Severity: error.

---

5. Sections Supplement

Directory: [SKILL_ROOT] review-criteria/sections/

Each file lists the mandatory section headings for one document type. The generic checker loads the appropriate supplement based on document type and checks that every listed section heading is present in the document (exact string match, case-insensitive).

Section files follow the naming convention: <doc-key>-sections.yaml where <doc-key> is the lowercase abbreviation from deliverables.yaml.

Available supplements (one per document type with QUA touchpoint):

Annex C item	Doc key	Sections file
1	SQAP	sqap-sections.yaml
2	SQAVR	sqavr-sections.yaml
3	SCMP	scmp-sections.yaml
4	SVP	svp-sections.yaml
5	SVaP	svap-sections.yaml
6	SRS	srs-sections.yaml
7	OTSTSPEC	otstspec-sections.yaml
8	REQVER	reqver-sections.yaml
9	SAS	sas-sections.yaml
10	SDS	sds-sections.yaml
11	INTERFACES	interfaces-sections.yaml
12	INTTESTSPEC	inttestspec-sections.yaml
13	HWINTTESTSPEC	hwinttestspec-sections.yaml
14	ARCHDESIGNVER	archdesignver-sections.yaml
15	COMPDESIGN	compdesign-sections.yaml
16	COMPTESTSPEC	comptestspec-sections.yaml
17	COMPDESIGNVER	compdesignver-sections.yaml
18	SOURCECODE	sourcecode-sections.yaml
19	SOURCECODEVER	sourcecodever-sections.yaml
20	COMPTESTRPT	comptestrpt-sections.yaml
21	INTTESTRPT	inttestrpt-sections.yaml
22	HWINTTESTRPT	hwinttestrpt-sections.yaml
23	INTVER	intver-sections.yaml
24	OVERALLTESTRPT	overalltestrpt-sections.yaml
25	VALRPT	valrpt-sections.yaml
26	TOOLSVALRPT	toolsvalrpt-sections.yaml
27	RELEASENOTE	releasenote-sections.yaml
36	DEPLOYPLAN	deployplan-sections.yaml
37	DEPLOYMAN	deployman-sections.yaml
38	RELEASENOTES	releasenotes-sections.yaml
39	DEPLOYREC	deployrec-sections.yaml
40	DEPLOYVER	deployver-sections.yaml
41	MAINTPLAN	maintplan-sections.yaml
42	CHANGEREC	changerec-sections.yaml
43	MAINTREC	maintrec-sections.yaml
44	MAINTVER	maintver-sections.yaml

Delivery-package documents (item 18 SOURCECODE): sections check is minimal — checks that a package manifest / index section exists. QUA does not inspect code content.

---

6. Coverage Waiver Validation (Component Test Reports — Item 20, SIL 2-4)

When reviewing a Component Test Report (Annex C item 20) that contains a coverage gap or waiver, QUA SHALL verify the following criteria beyond standard format checks. This is a mandatory content check for coverage waivers — not just format verification.

Trigger: Any Component Test Report stating coverage < 100% OR containing a "waiver" section OR listing "unreachable code" OR mentioning "hardware-dependent paths".

Check 1 — Stub inventory evidence

The report MUST identify which stub files were used in the test build (e.g., tests/stubs/*.c).

• If the module under test has hardware dependencies, stubs MUST exist and MUST have been included in the build command
• A bare claim of "hardware-dependent paths" is NOT acceptable if tests/stubs/ already contains stubs for those dependencies
• QUA SHALL check for the existence of stub files (listed in the report or visible in the repository) before accepting the waiver
• FAIL criterion: Report claims "hardware-dependent untested code" but stubs exist and were not used in the test build

Check 2 — Gap classification

Each uncovered code path MUST be classified as one of:

• (a) Genuinely unreachable code — defensive error handlers for architecturally impossible states, linker-generated symbols
• (b) Hardware path — no available stub AND no simulation environment exists (must be documented)
• (c) Test inadequacy — test cases simply not written

Classification (c) is NEVER an acceptable waiver justification. QUA SHALL return the document if any gap is implicitly or explicitly classified (c).

FAIL criterion: Gap is attributed to "not yet implemented tests", "insufficient test cases", or similar wording that indicates test inadequacy rather than genuine unreachability or hardware limitation.

Check 3 — Table A.21 Req 4 compensating measure (EN 50128:2011)

For any gap classified as (a) or (b), the report MUST cite a Table A.19 static analysis technique (e.g., control flow analysis, data flow analysis) applied as a compensating measure demonstrating correctness.

• "Will be verified in Phase 6 HIL testing" does NOT satisfy Table A.21 Req 4 and QUA SHALL NOT accept it as a compensating measure
• The report must reference an actual static analysis tool run (e.g., cppcheck, Coverity, PC-lint) and the specific finding or report ID confirming the path's properties

FAIL criterion: Waiver lacks a Table A.19 technique citation OR defers validation to a future phase without current static analysis evidence.

Check 4 — Compound condition coverage (SIL 3-4)

For SIL 3-4 projects, the report MUST include compound condition coverage results for safety-critical modules.

• A report that omits compound condition coverage entirely (not measured, not claimed) SHALL be returned unless a formal deviation from the SVP coverage targets has been approved
• If compound condition coverage is waived, the waiver must cite the approved deviation number and the compensating measure applied (typically data flow analysis per Table A.21 option)

FAIL criterion: SIL 3-4 report with no compound condition coverage data AND no approved deviation cited.

Check 5 — Minimum coverage combination (Table A.21 Req 2, SIL 3-4)

At SIL 3-4 component level, the test report must demonstrate coverage using one of:

• Branch + Compound Condition (Table A.21 items 2 AND 3)
• Branch + Data Flow (Table A.21 items 2 AND 4)
• Path coverage (Table A.21 item 5)

Statement + Branch alone (items 1+2) does NOT satisfy the SIL 3 minimum combination per Table A.21 Req 2. QUA SHALL return the document with a MAJOR finding if this is not met.

FAIL criterion: SIL 3-4 report presents only statement and branch coverage without compound condition, data flow, or path coverage.

---

Output when coverage waiver validation fails:

QUA shall write a QUA Review Report with:

• Overall result: FAIL
• Defect list entry for each failed check (Check 1–5)
• Severity: MAJOR (coverage waiver defects block gate passage)
• Disposition: returned to TST (test author) with requirement to fix defects and resubmit

Escalation: If a Component Test Report fails coverage waiver validation on the second submission (1-Pass Rule applies to test reports at SIL 3-4), QUA raises NCR severity=MAJOR and escalates to PM → VMGR per iteration limit policy (Section 3).

---

7. SQAP Authorship (Capability 2)

Per §6.5.4.3 and deviation D8 (DELIVERABLES.md):

• QUA authors the Software Quality Assurance Plan (item 1) under VER direction
• QUA cannot 2nd-check its own plan (self-certification conflict)
• VER performs the 1st check (SQAVR, item 2)
• The SQAP itself must document the role split (deviation D8)

SQAP minimum content (§6.5.4.5):

1. Lifecycle model definition (activities, entry/exit criteria, I/O, quality activities, responsible entities)
2. Documentation structure
3. Documentation control (roles for write/check/approval, distribution, archiving)
4. Tracking and tracing of deviations
5. Methods, measures and tools per SIL level (reference Table A.9)
6. Justifications for technique selections per §4.7–4.9
7. Platform deviations D1–D8 (from DELIVERABLES.md) — mandatory entry
8. Update procedure: frequency, responsibility, method (§6.5.4.9)

Table A.9 — SIL-tiered obligations to document in SQAP:

#	Technique	SIL 0	SIL 1	SIL 2	SIL 3	SIL 4
T1	EN ISO 9001 accreditation	R	HR	HR	HR	HR
T2	EN ISO 9001 compliance	M	M	M	M	M
T3	EN ISO 9001 certification	—	—	HR	HR	HR
T4	Company Quality System	M	M	M	M	M
T5	Software Configuration Management	M	M	M	M	M
T6	Traceability	R	HR	HR	M	M
T7	Metrics	—	R	R	R	R
T8	Data Recording and Analysis	HR	HR	HR	M	M

M = Mandatory, HR = Highly Recommended, R = Recommended, — = No recommendation.

---

8. Process Audit (Capability 3)

QUA audits that evidence exists — QUA does not re-execute technical checks.

Per-phase audit scope (from tasks/QUALITY_PROCESS.md Diagram 1):

Phase	QUA audit check
1	SQAP issued; SCMP issued; SVP produced by VER; SVaP produced by VAL
2	Hazard log initiated; SIL assignments recorded; traceability audit (VER performed T1–T2)
3	FMEA/FTA evidence exists (SAF); architecture meets SIL constraints (VER evidence, not QUA re-check)
4	Component test specs exist; component design reviewed
5	Static analysis report exists; MISRA evidence record exists; coverage record exists (QUA audits evidence, not values)
6	Integration test results recorded; SW/HW integration test results recorded
7	Validation report exists; Overall Software Test Report exists
8	No QUA activity
9	Release package complete; deployment records present
10	Maintenance records; change records per §9.2.4

Audit output: Audit Finding record → NCR if non-conformance found → PM for resolution.

---

9. Non-Conformance Management (Capability 4)

NCR fields:

• NCR ID: NCR-[YYYY]-[NNN]
• Phase: phase number where found
• Annex C item (if deliverable-related): item number
• Type: format_defect | process_defect | evidence_missing
• Severity: MINOR | MAJOR | CRITICAL
• Description: what was found
• Owner: agent/role responsible for fix
• Due: phase gate (must close before gate)
• Status: OPEN | RESOLVED | WAIVED
• Waiver authority: PM (MINOR/MAJOR) | COD (CRITICAL)

NCRs are tracked by QUA and reported at each phase gate. COD CANNOT pass a gate with open CRITICAL NCRs. PM must resolve MAJOR/MINOR before gate; waiver requires COD approval.

---

10. Metrics Report (Capability 5)

Collected per SQAP. Mandatory at SIL 3–4 (Table A.9 T7/T8).

Minimum metrics set:

• NCR count by phase, severity, type
• Gate pass/fail rates by phase
• QUA review iterations per deliverable (PASS on 1st / 2nd / 3rd submission)
• Open NCR age (days since raised)
• Deliverable first-submission PASS rate (quality trend indicator)

Report format: QUA Metrics Report — DOC-METRICSR-[YYYY]-[NNN]. Produced at each phase gate; archived under CM control.

---

11. QUA Review Report Output

Document ID: QUA-REVIEW-[YYYY]-[NNN]
Template: [PROJECT_ROOT] deliverables/quality/QA-Review-Report-template.md
Canonical path: obtain from CM query-location --doc QUAREPORT

The review report records:

• Document reviewed (Document ID, version, date)
• Annex C item number
• qua_check_type applied
• Iteration number (1, 2, or 3)
• Generic check results (GF-001, GF-002, GF-003)
• Sections check results (list of missing sections, if any)
• Overall result: PASS | FAIL
• Defect list (if FAIL): defect ID, rule, location, fix suggestion
• Disposition: approved for VER/VMGR review | returned to author

---

12. Tool Integration

QUA uses workspace.py wf commands from activities/workflow.yaml:

# Submit deliverable for QUA review (called by PM)
python3 tools/workspace.py wf submit <DOCUMENT_ID> \
  --path <path-to-document> \
  --author-role <AUTHOR_ROLE> \
  --author-name '<Author Name>' \
  --sil <0-4>

# Log QUA review result — PASS
python3 tools/workspace.py wf review <DOCUMENT_ID> \
  --role QUA \
  --name '<QUA Name>' \
  --approve \
  --comment "Format-gate PASS: all GF-001/GF-002/GF-003 and sections checks passed"

# Log QUA review result — FAIL
python3 tools/workspace.py wf review <DOCUMENT_ID> \
  --role QUA \
  --name '<QUA Name>' \
  --reject \
  --comment "<list of format defects found>"

NCRs raised by QUA are written as NCR records in the QUA Review Report and reported to PM. NCR format and escalation rules are defined in Section 9 of this skill.

Reference: en50128-lifecycle-tool-integration skill → workspace.py command reference.