[CNV-88080] STAGE TIER-1 test-common-instancetypes cnv-4.22 s390x

[guyoron1]

QualityFlow Integration Test

Jira Ticket: CNV-88080

Test planning run for common instancetypes tier-1 test failures on s390x architecture (cnv-4.22).

---

Test issue for QualityFlow ↔ FullSend integration validation

[guyoron1]

QualityFlow: CNV-88080

Artifact	Result
STP Review	APPROVED_WITH_FINDINGS
STD Review	APPROVED_WITH_FINDINGS
Requirements Traced	4
Test Scenarios	12 (0 tier1, 0 tier2)
Test Stubs	9 Go, 3 Python

Software Test Plan

Test Plan

Common Instance Types Validation on s390x (CNV 4.22.0) - Quality Engineering Plan

Metadata & Tracking

• Enhancement(s): None
• Feature Tracking: CNV-88080
• Epic Tracking: Epic: CNV-88002 (Release Checklist 4.22.0), Parent: CNV-88079
• QE Owner(s): TBD
• Owning SIG: CNV Infrastructure
• Participating SIGs: None

Document Conventions (if applicable): N/A

Feature Overview

This test plan covers the validation of common instance types on s390x architecture for CNV 4.22.0. Common instance types define standardized resource profiles (CPU, memory, device preferences) that can be applied to virtualization workloads, ensuring consistent and predictable resource allocation. Architecture-specific validation on s390x is critical to ensure that instance type definitions, preferences, and resource configurations function correctly on IBM Z/LinuxONE platforms, which have unique hardware characteristics and instruction set constraints.

---

I. Motivation and Requirements Review (QE Review Guidelines)

This section documents the mandatory QE review process. The goal is to understand the feature's value,
technology, and testability before formal test planning.

1. Requirement & User Story Review Checklist

• Review Requirements
  • Reviewed the relevant requirements.
  • The source ticket (CNV-88080) is a CI test execution tracker, not a feature ticket. Requirements were inferred from the test job name test-common-instancetypes-cnv-4.22-s390x and the component assignment (CNV Infrastructure). No explicit feature requirements are documented in this ticket or its parent hierarchy.
• Understand Value and Customer Use Cases
  • Confirmed clear user stories and understood.
  • Understand the difference between community and product requirements.
  • What is the value of the feature for customers.
  • Ensured requirements contain relevant customer use cases.
  • Common instance types provide standardized VM resource profiles for customers deploying workloads on s390x (IBM Z/LinuxONE). This ensures consistent resource allocation and simplifies workload deployment on multi-architecture clusters.
• Testability
  • Confirmed requirements are testable and unambiguous.
  • Testability is limited due to the lack of explicit acceptance criteria in the Jira ticket. Test scenarios are derived from the implicit scope of common instance type validation on s390x. The existing CI job (17 passed, 30 pending) indicates established test coverage exists.
• Acceptance Criteria
  • Ensured acceptance criteria are defined clearly (clear user stories; product requirements clearly defined in Jira).
  • No acceptance criteria are defined on CNV-88080 or its parent CNV-88079. The parent's only criterion is operational: "All Sub-Tasks related to this Task are analyzed and Closed." Feature-level acceptance criteria should be added.
• Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)
  • Confirmed coverage for NFRs, including Performance, Security, Usability, Downtime, Connectivity, Monitoring (alerts/metrics), Scalability, Portability (e.g., cloud support), and Docs.
  • NFRs are not explicitly defined. Architecture-specific performance characteristics on s390x (e.g., CPU topology differences, memory allocation patterns) may warrant dedicated NFR validation.

2. Known Limitations

• This ticket is a CI test execution tracker, not a feature development ticket. The STP is generated from limited context (job name, labels, component) without access to feature specifications, PRs, or source code.
• No PR data or code diffs are available for regression analysis. Test scenarios are inferred rather than traced from code changes.
• 30 of 47 tests are in "pending" state in the latest CI run, indicating incomplete test coverage or disabled tests on s390x.
• No source repository was mounted for LSP analysis; call graph tracing was not performed.
• The project configuration uses example/default values rather than CNV-specific configuration.

3. Technology and Design Review

• Developer Handoff/QE Kickoff
  • A meeting where Dev/Arch walked QE through the design, architecture, and implementation details. Critical for identifying untestable aspects early.
  • No developer handoff information is available from the ticket data. The common instance types feature is part of CNV Infrastructure (former SSP team).
• Technology Challenges
  • Identified potential testing challenges related to the underlying technology.
  • s390x architecture has unique characteristics: different CPU instruction set (z/Architecture), different virtualization model (z/VM or KVM on Z), and specific device types. Instance type definitions must account for these differences.
• Test Environment Needs
  • Determined necessary test environment setups and tools.
  • Requires s390x cluster infrastructure. The CI job ran on OCP 4.22.0-ec.3 with CNV v4.22.0.rhel9-171. Cluster information was noted as "not available" in the execution report.
• API Extensions
  • Reviewed new or modified APIs and their impact on testing.
  • Common instance types use the instancetype.kubevirt.io API group. No API change information is available from this ticket.
• Topology Considerations
  • Evaluated multi-cluster, network topology, and architectural impacts.
  • Testing is architecture-specific (s390x). Cross-architecture compatibility with x86_64 and aarch64 instance type definitions should be considered.

---

II. Software Test Plan (STP)

This STP serves as the overall roadmap for testing, detailing the scope, approach, resources, and schedule.

1. Scope of Testing

This test plan covers the validation of common instance types on s390x architecture within CNV 4.22.0. Testing focuses on verifying that standard instance type definitions are correctly parsed, validated, and applied to virtualization workloads running on s390x nodes. This includes instance type resource specifications, preference definitions, and cross-architecture compatibility.

Testing Goals

Functional Goals:

• P0: Verify that all common instance type definitions are valid and applicable on s390x clusters
• P1: Verify that instance type preferences resolve correctly on s390x workloads
• P1: Verify that instance types produce correct resource configurations on s390x nodes

Quality Goals:

• P1: Achieve parity with x86_64 instance type test coverage on s390x
• P2: Reduce pending test count (currently 30 of 47) on s390x CI job

Integration Goals:

• P1: Verify cross-architecture instance type compatibility between s390x and other supported architectures

Out of Scope (Testing Scope Exclusions)

• OCP platform-level s390x functionality -- Rationale: Platform scheduling, node management, and s390x kernel support are tested by the OCP platform QE team. -- PM/Lead Agreement: TBD
• KVM/z/VM hypervisor-level testing -- Rationale: Hypervisor functionality on s390x is tested by the virtualization platform team. -- PM/Lead Agreement: TBD
• Instance type CRD schema validation -- Rationale: CRD schema validation is a KubeVirt upstream concern, not specific to s390x validation. -- PM/Lead Agreement: TBD

2. Test Strategy

Functional

• Functional Testing -- Validates that the feature works according to specified requirements and user stories
  • Details: Validate common instance type definitions apply correctly on s390x, including resource specs and preferences. Core functional validation of instance type lifecycle operations.
• Automation Testing -- Confirms test automation plan is in place for CI and regression coverage (all tests are expected to be automated)
  • Details: Existing CI job test-common-instancetypes-cnv-4.22-s390x provides automated regression coverage. All new tests will be automated in Ginkgo v2 framework.
• Regression Testing -- Verifies that new changes do not break existing functionality
  • Details: Regression coverage provided by the existing 17 passing tests. Focus on resolving the 30 pending tests to expand regression baseline.

Non-Functional

• Performance Testing -- Validates feature performance meets requirements (latency, throughput, resource usage)
  • Details: Not applicable for this scope. Instance type application performance is not a primary concern for s390x validation.
• Scale Testing -- Validates feature behavior under increased load and at production-like scale (e.g., large number of resources, nodes, or concurrent operations)
  • Details: Not applicable for this scope. Scale testing of instance types is architecture-independent.
• Security Testing -- Verifies security requirements, RBAC, authentication, authorization, and vulnerability scanning
  • Details: Not applicable for this scope. RBAC for instance types is architecture-independent.
• Usability Testing -- Validates user experience and accessibility requirements
  • Details: Not applicable. Instance types are API-driven resources without a dedicated UI component.
• Monitoring -- Does the feature require metrics and/or alerts?
  • Details: Not applicable for this scope. Instance type metrics are architecture-independent.

Integration & Compatibility

• Compatibility Testing -- Ensures feature works across supported platforms, versions, and configurations
  • Details: Validate instance type compatibility across s390x and other supported architectures (x86_64, aarch64). Ensure definitions are portable.
• Upgrade Testing -- Validates upgrade paths from previous versions, data migration, and configuration preservation
  • Details: Not in current scope. Upgrade testing for instance types on s390x should be covered by upgrade-specific test plans.
• Dependencies -- Blocked by deliverables from other components/products. Identify what we need from other teams before we can test.
  • Details: Depends on s390x cluster availability and CNV Infrastructure team's common instance type definitions being up to date for CNV 4.22.0.
• Cross Integrations -- Does the feature affect other features or require testing by other teams? Identify the impact we cause.
  • Details: Common instance types affect VM creation workflows. Changes to instance type definitions on s390x may impact teams testing VM lifecycle on multi-architecture clusters.

Infrastructure

• Cloud Testing -- Does the feature require multi-cloud platform testing? Consider cloud-specific features.
  • Details: Not applicable. s390x testing is on-premise IBM Z infrastructure.

3. Test Environment

• Cluster Topology: Single-node or multi-node s390x cluster (s390x worker nodes required)
• Platform & Product Version(s): OCP 4.22.0-ec.3, CNV v4.22.0.rhel9-171
• CPU Virtualization: z/Architecture (s390x KVM)
• Compute Resources: s390x compute nodes with sufficient IFLs (Integrated Facility for Linux)
• Special Hardware: IBM Z/LinuxONE s390x hardware required
• Storage: Standard storage classes available on s390x cluster
• Network: Standard cluster networking (OVN-Kubernetes or OpenShiftSDN)
• Required Operators: CNV operator (OpenShift Virtualization) deployed on s390x cluster
• Platform: Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform on s390x
• Special Configurations: N/A

3.1. Testing Tools & Frameworks

• Test Framework: N/A (standard Ginkgo v2 framework)
• CI/CD: N/A (standard Jenkins CI pipeline)
• Other Tools: N/A

4. Entry Criteria

The following conditions must be met before testing can begin:

• Requirements and design documents are approved and merged
• Test environment can be set up and configured (see Section II.3 - Test Environment)
• s390x cluster with OCP 4.22+ and CNV 4.22+ is available and healthy
• Common instance type definitions are deployed and accessible on the cluster

5. Risks

• Timeline/Schedule
  • Risk: s390x hardware availability may delay test execution; limited s390x CI capacity
  • Mitigation: Coordinate with infrastructure team for dedicated s390x test slots; use existing CI pipeline scheduling
• Test Coverage
  • Risk: 30 of 47 tests are currently pending on s390x, indicating significant coverage gaps
  • Mitigation: Investigate and resolve pending tests to expand coverage baseline; prioritize tests by P0/P1 classification
• Test Environment
  • Risk: Cluster information was unavailable in the latest CI run, suggesting potential environment instability
  • Mitigation: Validate cluster health before test execution; establish environment monitoring
• Untestable Aspects
  • Risk: Some instance type behaviors may be architecture-specific and difficult to validate without deep z/Architecture knowledge
  • Mitigation: Collaborate with IBM Z specialists and CNV Infrastructure team for architecture-specific test guidance
• Resource Constraints
  • Risk: Limited QE expertise on s390x architecture
  • Mitigation: Knowledge sharing sessions with CNV Infrastructure team; leverage existing test patterns from x86_64
• Dependencies
  • Risk: Dependency on common instance type definitions being maintained and updated for s390x compatibility
  • Mitigation: Monitor upstream instance type definition changes; automate compatibility checks
• Other
  • Risk: This STP was generated from a CI execution tracking ticket with limited feature context; test scenarios may be incomplete
  • Mitigation: Review and validate test scenarios with CNV Infrastructure team; update STP after feature ticket linkage

---

III. Test Scenarios & Traceability

This section links requirements to test coverage, enabling reviewers to verify all requirements are tested.

1. Requirements-to-Tests Mapping

• [CNV-88080] -- Common instance types are functional on s390x architecture

  • Test Scenario: Verify common instance types apply on s390x
  • Tier: Functional
  • Priority: P1
  • Test Scenario: Verify instance type with invalid architecture label
  • Tier: Functional
  • Priority: P1
  • Test Scenario: Verify instance type functionality after node restart
  • Tier: End-to-End
  • Priority: P1

• [CNV-88080] -- Common instance type definitions are valid and applicable on s390x

  • Test Scenario: Verify instance type definitions validate on s390x
  • Tier: Functional
  • Priority: P1
  • Test Scenario: Verify rejection of malformed instance type spec
  • Tier: Functional
  • Priority: P1
  • Test Scenario: Verify instance type with boundary resource values
  • Tier: Functional
  • Priority: P1

• [CNV-88080] -- Common instance types maintain cross-architecture compatibility (s390x)

  • Test Scenario: Verify cross-architecture instance type compatibility
  • Tier: End-to-End
  • Priority: P1
  • Test Scenario: Verify error for architecture-incompatible instance type
  • Tier: Functional
  • Priority: P1
  • Test Scenario: Verify instance type consistency across architectures
  • Tier: End-to-End
  • Priority: P1

• [CNV-88080] -- Instance type preferences are correctly applied on s390x

  • Test Scenario: Verify preference application on s390x workloads
  • Tier: Functional
  • Priority: P2
  • Test Scenario: Verify behavior with conflicting preferences
  • Tier: Functional
  • Priority: P2
  • Test Scenario: Verify preference precedence ordering on s390x
  • Tier: Functional
  • Priority: P2

---

IV. Sign-off and Approval

This Software Test Plan requires approval from the following stakeholders:

• Reviewers:
  • [TBD / CNV Infrastructure QE]
  • [TBD / CNV Infrastructure Dev]
• Approvers:
  • [TBD / QE Lead]
  • [TBD / CNV Infrastructure Team Lead]

STP Review Report

STP Review Report: CNV-88080

Reviewed: /tmp/workspace/output/CNV-88080_test_plan.md
Date: 2026-06-07
Reviewer: QualityFlow Automated Review (v1.1.0)
Review Rules Schema: 1.1.0

---

Verdict: APPROVED_WITH_FINDINGS

Summary

Metric	Value
Dimensions reviewed	7/7
Critical findings	0
Major findings	6
Minor findings	5
Actionable findings	8
Confidence	LOW
Weighted score	62/100

Dimension Scores

Dimension	Weight	Pass Rate	Weighted
1. Rule Compliance	25%	83%	20.8
2. Requirement Coverage	30%	30%	9.0
3. Scenario Quality	15%	67%	10.1
4. Risk & Limitation Accuracy	10%	80%	8.0
5. Scope Boundary Assessment	10%	60%	6.0
6. Test Strategy Appropriateness	5%	70%	3.5
7. Metadata Accuracy	5%	80%	4.0
Total	100%		61.4

---

Findings by Dimension

Dimension 1: Rule Compliance (Rules A-P)

Rule	Status	Finding
A — Abstraction Level	PASS	Scope items and test scenarios use user-facing language. No internal component references in scenarios.
A.2 — Language Precision	PASS	No anthropomorphization, colloquial phrasing, or vague qualifiers found in formal sections.
B — Section I Meta-Checklist	PASS	Section I.1 has 5 checkbox items with appropriate sub-items. Section I.2 has Known Limitations. Section I.3 has 5 checkbox items. All follow template structure.
C — Prerequisites vs Scenarios	PASS	No test scenarios describe configuration requirements. Entry criteria correctly list prerequisites (s390x cluster availability, instance type definitions deployed).
D — Dependencies	WARN	Dependencies checkbox lists "s390x cluster availability" which is infrastructure, not a team delivery. However, the "common instance type definitions being up to date" is a valid dependency on the CNV Infrastructure team.
E — Upgrade Testing	PASS	Upgrade Testing is unchecked. Instance types are declarative CRD definitions — while they do persist, this is a CI execution tracking ticket with no feature changes, so unchecking is reasonable.
F — Version Derivation	PASS	Versions (OCP 4.22.0-ec.3, CNV v4.22.0.rhel9-171) are derived from the Jira ticket's CI execution data, which is the correct source for this ticket type.
G — Testing Tools	PASS	Section II.3.1 correctly marks all items as N/A, noting standard tools only.
G.2 — Environment Specificity	PASS	Environment items are feature-specific to s390x (z/Architecture KVM, IFLs, IBM Z hardware). Not generic boilerplate.
H — Risk Deduplication	PASS	No risk entries duplicate information from Test Environment. Risks focus on uncertainties (hardware availability, pending tests, expertise gaps) while environment lists infrastructure requirements.
I — QE Kickoff Timing	WARN	Developer Handoff sub-item states "No developer handoff information is available." Does not indicate whether kickoff should be scheduled during design phase. However, this is a CI tracking ticket, not a feature development ticket, so handoff may not apply.
J — One Tier Per Row	PASS	Every scenario bullet specifies exactly one tier (Functional or End-to-End). No multi-tier entries found.
K — Cross-Section Consistency	WARN	Minor inconsistency: Testing Goals include "Achieve parity with x86_64 instance type test coverage" but no scenario in Section III directly tests x86_64 parity. The "cross-architecture compatibility" scenarios partially address this but do not directly measure parity.
L — Section Content Validation	PASS	Content is in appropriate sections. No misplaced content detected. Known Limitations correctly contains constraints, not out-of-scope decisions.
M — Deletion Test	PASS	All sections contain decision-relevant information. No excessive background duplication from Jira. Feature Overview is appropriately concise (1 paragraph).
N — Link/Reference Validation	PASS	Jira links (CNV-88080, CNV-88079, CNV-88002) are syntactically valid and point to the correct redhat.atlassian.net domain. No personal fork URLs or stale references.
O — Untestable Aspects	PASS	No items marked as untestable. Known Limitations describe data availability constraints, not testability issues.
P — Testing Pyramid Efficiency	PASS	N/A — not a bug ticket and no PR data available. Skipped per activation guard.

Dimension 2: Requirement Coverage

Metric	Value
Acceptance criteria covered	0/0
Acceptance criteria coverage rate	N/A (no AC in Jira)
P0 criteria covered	N/A
Linked issues reflected	0/0
Negative scenarios present	YES (4 negative scenarios)
Edge cases identified	0 (from Jira) / 2 (in STP)

Gaps identified:

• finding_id: D2-COV-001
  severity: MAJOR
  dimension: Requirement Coverage
  description: No acceptance criteria exist in the Jira ticket (CNV-88080) or its parent (CNV-88079). The parent's only AC is operational ("All Sub-Tasks are analyzed and Closed"). Requirements were entirely inferred from the CI job name. Coverage cannot be verified against source data.
  evidence: "Jira CNV-88080 acceptance_criteria: null; CNV-88079 AC: 'All Sub-Tasks related to this Task are analyzed and Closed'"
  remediation: Add feature-level acceptance criteria to the Jira ticket or link to a feature ticket that has them. Until then, the STP's requirement coverage cannot be validated.
  actionable: false

• finding_id: D2-COV-002
  severity: MAJOR
  dimension: Requirement Coverage
  description: All 4 requirement entries use the same Jira ID (CNV-88080). This ticket is a CI execution sub-task, not a feature ticket. Requirement IDs should trace to actual feature tickets that describe what common instance types do.
  evidence: "All Section III entries use [CNV-88080] — a CI execution tracking ticket"
  remediation: Identify and link the feature ticket(s) that describe common instance types functionality. Use those ticket IDs as requirement IDs in Section III.
  actionable: false

• finding_id: D2-COV-003
  severity: MAJOR
  dimension: Requirement Coverage
  description: No linked issues exist on CNV-88080 or its parent. The pipeline could not discover related feature tickets, design documents, or implementation PRs. The STP's scope is derived entirely from the CI job name, making coverage completeness unverifiable.
  evidence: "CNV-88080 issuelinks: []; CNV-88079 issuelinks: []"
  remediation: Link related feature tickets, design documents, or implementation PRs to CNV-88080 or CNV-88079 in Jira.
  actionable: false

Dimension 3: Scenario Quality

Metric	Value
Total scenarios	12
Functional	9
End-to-End	3
P0	0
P1	9
P2	3
Positive scenarios	7
Negative scenarios	4
E2E workflow scenarios	1

Scenario-level findings:

• finding_id: D3-QUAL-001
  severity: MAJOR
  dimension: Scenario Quality
  description: No P0 scenarios exist. The primary positive scenario for the feature's core capability ("Verify common instance types apply on s390x") should be P0 as it represents the fundamental functionality being validated.
  evidence: "All scenarios are P1 or P2. No P0 designation found."
  remediation: Upgrade "Verify common instance types apply on s390x" and "Verify instance type definitions validate on s390x" to P0 priority.
  actionable: true

• finding_id: D3-QUAL-002
  severity: MINOR
  dimension: Scenario Quality
  description: "Verify instance type consistency across architectures" and "Verify cross-architecture instance type compatibility" are similar in scope. Consider consolidating or differentiating more clearly.
  evidence: "Both scenarios address cross-architecture compatibility as E2E tests at P1."
  remediation: Differentiate the scenarios — e.g., one tests that the same definition produces correct results on s390x vs x86_64, while the other tests that definitions created on one architecture are usable on another.
  actionable: true

• finding_id: D3-QUAL-003
  severity: MINOR
  dimension: Scenario Quality
  description: Tier distribution is reasonable (75% Functional, 25% End-to-End) but some E2E scenarios may be over-classified. "Verify instance type functionality after node restart" tests a single feature's resilience and could be Functional rather than E2E.
  evidence: "Scenario 'Verify instance type functionality after node restart' classified as End-to-End"
  remediation: Consider reclassifying "Verify instance type functionality after node restart" as Functional — it tests a single feature's behavior across a state transition, not a multi-feature workflow.
  actionable: true

Dimension 4: Risk & Limitation Accuracy

• finding_id: D4-RISK-001
  severity: MINOR
  dimension: Risk & Limitation Accuracy
  description: The "Other" risk entry acknowledges the STP was generated from limited context, which is accurate and honest. However, the mitigation ("update STP after feature ticket linkage") is vague on timeline.
  evidence: "Risk: This STP was generated from a CI execution tracking ticket with limited feature context"
  remediation: Add a specific timeline or condition — e.g., "Update STP within 5 business days of feature ticket linkage."
  actionable: true

All 7 risk categories are present with specific risks and actionable mitigations. Known Limitations accurately reflect the data quality constraints. No contradictions between limitations and testing goals.

Dimension 5: Scope Boundary Assessment

• finding_id: D5-SCOPE-001
  severity: MAJOR
  dimension: Scope Boundary Assessment
  description: The STP scope is inferred entirely from the CI job name "test-common-instancetypes-cnv-4.22-s390x." Without a feature ticket, it's impossible to verify whether the scope accurately represents what common instance types functionality encompasses. The scope may be incomplete or misaligned with actual feature capabilities.
  evidence: "Ticket assessment verdict: INSUFFICIENT. No feature description, no PRs, no acceptance criteria."
  remediation: This finding cannot be resolved without linking to a feature ticket that describes common instance types. The scope should be reviewed and validated by the CNV Infrastructure team.
  actionable: false

• finding_id: D5-SCOPE-002
  severity: MINOR
  dimension: Scope Boundary Assessment
  description: Out of Scope items are reasonable and correctly exclude platform-level testing. However, all three PM/Lead Agreement fields are "TBD" — these should be filled for scope exclusion sign-off.
  evidence: "PM/Lead Agreement: TBD (on all 3 Out of Scope items)"
  remediation: Obtain PM or team lead acknowledgment for each scope exclusion.
  actionable: false

Dimension 6: Test Strategy Appropriateness

• finding_id: D6-STRAT-001
  severity: MINOR
  dimension: Test Strategy Appropriateness
  description: Compatibility Testing is checked with sub-items about cross-architecture validation, which is appropriate. However, the "Ensure definitions are portable" sub-item is vague. What does "portable" mean measurably?
  evidence: "Compatibility Testing — Details: Validate instance type compatibility across s390x and other supported architectures (x86_64, aarch64). Ensure definitions are portable."
  remediation: Replace "Ensure definitions are portable" with a measurable criterion — e.g., "Verify instance type definitions created on x86_64 can be applied without modification on s390x."
  actionable: true

Functional Testing, Automation Testing, and Regression Testing are correctly checked. Non-functional items (Performance, Scale, Security, Usability, Monitoring) are correctly unchecked with appropriate justifications. Cloud Testing correctly marked N/A for on-premise s390x.

Dimension 7: Metadata Accuracy

• finding_id: D7-META-001
  severity: MAJOR
  dimension: Metadata Accuracy
  description: The STP title uses "Common Instance Types Validation on s390x (CNV 4.22.0)" which is a reasonable interpretation, but the Jira summary is "[STAGE][TIER-1][test-common-instancetypes-cnv-4.22-s390x][cnv-4.22.0]" — a CI job identifier, not a feature name. There is a naming gap because no feature ticket exists to provide an authoritative feature name.
  evidence: "Jira summary: '[STAGE][TIER-1][test-common-instancetypes-cnv-4.22-s390x][cnv-4.22.0]'; STP title: 'Common Instance Types Validation on s390x (CNV 4.22.0)'"
  remediation: The STP title is a reasonable human-readable derivation. Confirm the feature name with the CNV Infrastructure team for cross-artifact consistency.
  actionable: false

Enhancement links: "None" — correct, no enhancement proposal exists for a CI tracking ticket.
Feature Tracking: Points to CNV-88080 — correct.
Epic Tracking: Points to CNV-88002 (Release Checklist 4.22.0) with parent CNV-88079 — correct chain.
Owning SIG: "CNV Infrastructure" — matches Jira component "CNV Infrastructure" — correct.

---

Recommendations

1. [MAJOR] No acceptance criteria in Jira — coverage cannot be validated. — Remediation: Add feature-level acceptance criteria to the Jira ticket or link to a feature ticket. — Actionable: no
2. [MAJOR] All requirement IDs trace to a CI tracking ticket, not a feature ticket. — Remediation: Identify and link the actual feature ticket(s) for common instance types. — Actionable: no
3. [MAJOR] No linked issues — pipeline could not discover related feature/implementation data. — Remediation: Link related feature tickets, design docs, or PRs in Jira. — Actionable: no
4. [MAJOR] No P0 scenarios — core functionality should be P0. — Remediation: Upgrade primary positive scenarios to P0. — Actionable: yes
5. [MAJOR] Scope derived from CI job name only — cannot verify completeness. — Remediation: Validate scope with CNV Infrastructure team. — Actionable: no
6. [MAJOR] Feature name gap — no authoritative feature name from Jira. — Remediation: Confirm feature name with team. — Actionable: no
7. [MINOR] Overlapping E2E scenarios for cross-architecture compatibility. — Remediation: Differentiate or consolidate. — Actionable: yes
8. [MINOR] "Verify instance type functionality after node restart" may be over-classified as E2E. — Remediation: Consider reclassifying as Functional. — Actionable: yes
9. [MINOR] "Other" risk mitigation lacks timeline specificity. — Remediation: Add specific timeline. — Actionable: yes
10. [MINOR] Out of Scope PM/Lead Agreement fields are TBD. — Remediation: Obtain sign-off. — Actionable: no
11. [MINOR] Compatibility Testing sub-item "Ensure definitions are portable" is vague. — Remediation: Add measurable criterion. — Actionable: yes

---

Confidence Notes

Factor	Status
Jira source data available	YES (but limited — CI tracking ticket)
Linked issues fetched	NO (none linked)
PR data referenced in STP	NO (none available)
All STP sections present	YES
Template comparison possible	YES (local fallback template used)
Project review rules loaded	YES (68% defaults — LOW precision)

Confidence rationale: Confidence is LOW due to three compounding factors: (1) The source Jira ticket is a CI test execution tracker with no feature description, acceptance criteria, or linked PRs — the STP was generated from extremely limited context. (2) 68% of review rules use generic defaults (no project-specific review_rules.yaml, no repo_rules fetched). (3) No linked issues or PR data available for cross-reference validation. The review can validate structural quality and internal consistency but cannot assess requirement coverage or scope accuracy against ground truth.

Review precision reduced: 68% of rules using generic defaults. Consider adding project-specific review_rules.yaml or enabling repo_files_fetch.

---

Generated by QualityFlow test planning agent