auto(polish): W24 #20 sotif-analysis-builder review pass, regen STATUS, journal

Autonomous daily run. - POLISH: first polish-log entry for sotif-analysis-builder (severity low, no fix needed) - Closes standing SOTIF zero-touch coverage mandate via documented review - STATUS.md regenerated (76/76 paired, 100%); journal updated Generated by automotive-skills-daily-standup scheduled task.
2026-06-09 11:08:00 +00:00
parent 2623e1480a
commit a6df28d089
3 changed files with 72 additions and 2 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# Polish log — sotif-analysis-builder
+
+## 2026-06-09 (W24 POLISH, first pass)
+
+**Tracking issue:** #20 (W24 polish target, label `sotif`)
+**Mode:** POLISH · **Severity:** low (no blocking issues found)
+**In-place fix applied:** none required (see rationale)
+
+### What's good
+- **Frontmatter is valid and complete.** Required fields `name` and `description`
+  both present; `description` is 619 chars, comfortably under the 1024-char ceiling.
+  The description correctly frames SOTIF as distinct from ISO 26262 random-HW faults,
+  which is the single most important triggering distinction for this skill.
+- **Body is coherent and self-consistent.** The "Output structure (12 tabs)" header
+  matches the table exactly (rows 00–11 = 12 tabs). The tab inventory in the body
+  lines up with the tab list implied by the description.
+- **Schema/example/generator are aligned.** Example input
+  `examples/sample_sotif_input_aeb.json` has top-level keys
+  `[system, functions, odd_definition, performance_limitations,
+  functional_insufficiencies, triggering_conditions, hazardous_behaviors,
+  scenarios, acceptance_criteria]` and every one is consumed by
+  `scripts/generate_sotif_analysis.py` via a matching `data.get(...)`. No orphan
+  fields, no fields the generator reads that the example omits.
+- **Scripts are syntactically sound.** `generate_sotif_analysis.py` and `recalc.py`
+  both parse without error. No `TODO`/`FIXME`/`placeholder`/`lorem` markers anywhere
+  in the archive.
+- **Correct cross-reference.** "When to use" routes random-HW-failure hazards to
+  hara-builder, reinforcing the SOTIF-vs-FuSa boundary.
+
+### What to fix
+- Nothing blocking. The skill is in good health.
+
+### Suggested (non-blocking) edits for a future pass
+- **Quadrant terminology consistency (cosmetic):** the body uses both the standard
+  ISO 21448 4-quadrant labels and the prose "Known/Unknown × Safe/Unsafe". These
+  agree, but a one-line legend near tab 09 would remove any ambiguity for new users.
+- **Acceptance-criterion singular/plural:** prose refers to "Acceptance criterion"
+  (tab 10) while the input key is `acceptance_criteria` (plural). The generator
+  already keys on the plural, so this is purely descriptive — worth a one-word
+  harmonization only if the file is opened for another reason.
+- **Reference freshness:** `references/iso21448_clauses.md` cites the §6 concept /
+  §5 scenario taxonomy structure; confirm against the current ISO 21448:2022 clause
+  numbering on a future content pass (low priority — structure is unchanged).
+
+### Rationale for no in-place change
+Per POLISH discipline, edits are limited to small, obvious, unambiguous fixes
+(typo, over-length description, missing required frontmatter). None of those
+conditions are present here. The suggestions above are content-judgement calls,
+not mechanical fixes, so they are logged for a future deliberate pass rather than
+applied blind. A small honest commit beats a wrong one.
+
+### Net assessment
+Healthy skill. The 🟡 staleness flag in STATUS.md is **date-based, not
+quality-based** — the file simply hasn't been edited since 2026-05-01. This review
+satisfies the standing SOTIF-coverage mandate (SOTIF was the only zero-touch domain
+in the May KPI); the domain has now had a documented quality pass.