[Malcolmnixon]

Summary

Upgrades demaconsulting.reqstream 1.10.0 -> 1.11.0 and adopts the root-tags
orphan-detection feature (same playbook as ReqStream #211/#212, DictionaryMark
#39, and FileAssert #75) to guarantee every requirement traces up to either a
product-facing System requirement or a documented Quality/process outcome.

Changes

• Tagged all 23 ReviewMark-System-* requirements with [system].
• Added docs/reqstream/quality.yaml -- 8 quality-outcome categories (build
  integrity, traceable versions, static analysis, peer review, documentation
  generation, test infrastructure, requirements traceability, architecture
  traceability), tagged [quality], covering all process/tooling OTS
  dependencies and the self-dogfooded ReviewMark-OTS-ReviewMark-* set.
• Set root-tags: [system, quality] in requirements.yaml.
• Linked genuine production-code OTS dependencies (YamlDotNet, PDFsharp,
  Microsoft.Extensions.FileSystemGlobbing, DemaConsulting.TestResults) to the
  specific unit that consumes them (confirmed via using statements in
  src/), rather than the quality tier, since they implement product
  functionality rather than process/tooling concerns.

Notable finding: real, shipped features that were never wired up

Tracing orphans found two genuinely user-facing, README-documented features
whose unit-level requirements existed and had passing tests, but were never
connected through the Configuration subsystem layer to any System
requirement:

• The context: (reference-material) feature -- context: entries are
  parsed, excluded from fingerprinting and coverage, shown during
  --elaborate, deduplicated against paths:, and support per-review-set
  exclusion patterns.
• The needs-review-constrained review-set resolution feature -- review set
  file resolution and fingerprinting are constrained to the declared
  needs-review set when present.

Both were fully implemented and tested at the unit level (ReviewMark-Config-Context*,
ReviewMark-Config-*Constrained*) but had no path back to a System
requirement -- exactly the class of "good in isolation, no user" gap
root-tags was built to catch. Linked each to the Configuration-* node
matching its actual behavior (NeedsReview for coverage/constraint semantics,
Fingerprinting for fingerprint exclusion, Elaboration for context display),
based on test-to-parent overlap evidence, not arbitrary placement.

Also closed several smaller genuine omissions: ReviewMark-PathHelpers-TraversalRejection
missing from Indexing-SafePathCombine's children, ReviewMark-Indexing-CreateEvidence
(the none evidence-source path) never linked to System-ReviewReport,
ReviewMark-Program-ExecuteOperation never linked under System-Version, and
ReviewMark-Cmd-LintSilence never linked under System-LintSilenceOnSuccess.

No dead code was found in this repository (unlike FileAssert, where the same
process uncovered a genuinely superseded feature).

Validation

• dotnet reqstream --requirements requirements.yaml -> 0 orphans
• dotnet reqstream --requirements requirements.yaml --lint -> pass
• dotnet build -c Release -> 0 warnings, 0 errors
• dotnet test (net8.0/net9.0/net10.0) -> 867/867 passed
• pwsh ./lint.ps1 -> pass
• dotnet reviewmark --lint -> pass
• dotnet sysml2tools lint -> no errors

Co-authored-by: Copilot 223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com

[Copilot]

🟡 Changes recommended

docs/reqstream/quality.yaml contains contradictory/misleading justification wording that should be corrected to avoid audit/traceability confusion.

Once you've addressed the issues Copilot identified, you can request another Copilot review.

Pull request overview

This PR updates the repository’s ReqStream configuration to use the new root-tag orphan detection (via ReqStream 1.11.0), ensuring every requirement traces up to an explicitly tagged root requirement in either the product-facing system tier ([system]) or the repository/process quality tier ([quality]).

Changes:

• Upgraded demaconsulting.reqstream from 1.10.0 to 1.11.0 and enabled root-tags: [system, quality].
• Tagged all ReviewMark-System-* root requirements with [system] and introduced a new [quality] root requirements file for process/repository outcomes.
• Tightened trace links by adding missing children and linking specific OTS dependencies to the units that actually consume them.

File summaries

File	Description
requirements.yaml	Enables root-tag orphan detection and includes the new quality requirements file.
docs/reqstream/quality.yaml	Adds [quality] root requirements covering CI/process outcomes and links to tool/OTS children.
docs/reqstream/review-mark.yaml	Tags system-level roots with [system] and fills a few missing child links under system requirements.
docs/reqstream/review-mark/configuration.yaml	Wires previously-orphaned configuration behaviors (context + constrained resolution) into the system tree.
docs/reqstream/review-mark/configuration/review-mark-configuration.yaml	Links configuration parsing behavior to the specific OTS YAML library requirements.
docs/reqstream/review-mark/configuration/glob-matcher.yaml	Links glob-matching behavior to the specific OTS globbing library requirements.
docs/reqstream/review-mark/indexing.yaml	Adds the missing traversal-rejection requirement under safe path combining.
docs/reqstream/review-mark/indexing/review-index.yaml	Links PDF metadata parsing to the PDF library OTS requirement.
docs/reqstream/review-mark/self-test/validation.yaml	Links results-file serialization behavior to the TestResults OTS requirements.
.config/dotnet-tools.json	Bumps demaconsulting.reqstream tool version to 1.11.0.

Review details

Suppressed comments (7)

docs/reqstream/quality.yaml:45

• The justification calls this a "non-requirement grouping node", but it is still a requirement entry in the ReqStream model. This wording is self-contradictory and can confuse traceability/audit readers; consider describing it as a non-atomic (grouping) requirement instead.

          This requirement is satisfied by its children: it is a non-requirement grouping
          node, and verification evidence is carried by each atomic child requirement's tests.

docs/reqstream/quality.yaml:63

• The justification calls this a "non-requirement grouping node", but it is still a requirement entry in the ReqStream model. This wording is self-contradictory and can confuse traceability/audit readers; consider describing it as a non-atomic (grouping) requirement instead.

          This requirement is satisfied by its children: it is a non-requirement grouping
          node, and verification evidence is carried by each atomic child requirement's tests.

docs/reqstream/quality.yaml:85

• The justification calls this a "non-requirement grouping node", but it is still a requirement entry in the ReqStream model. This wording is self-contradictory and can confuse traceability/audit readers; consider describing it as a non-atomic (grouping) requirement instead.

          This requirement is satisfied by its children: it is a non-requirement grouping
          node, and verification evidence is carried by each atomic child requirement's tests.

docs/reqstream/quality.yaml:106

• The justification calls this a "non-requirement grouping node", but it is still a requirement entry in the ReqStream model. This wording is self-contradictory and can confuse traceability/audit readers; consider describing it as a non-atomic (grouping) requirement instead.

          This requirement is satisfied by its children: it is a non-requirement grouping
          node, and verification evidence is carried by each atomic child requirement's tests.

docs/reqstream/quality.yaml:123

• The justification calls this a "non-requirement grouping node", but it is still a requirement entry in the ReqStream model. This wording is self-contradictory and can confuse traceability/audit readers; consider describing it as a non-atomic (grouping) requirement instead.

          This requirement is satisfied by its children: it is a non-requirement grouping
          node, and verification evidence is carried by each atomic child requirement's tests.

docs/reqstream/quality.yaml:140

• The justification calls this a "non-requirement grouping node", but it is still a requirement entry in the ReqStream model. This wording is self-contradictory and can confuse traceability/audit readers; consider describing it as a non-atomic (grouping) requirement instead.

          This requirement is satisfied by its children: it is a non-requirement grouping
          node, and verification evidence is carried by the atomic child requirement's tests.

docs/reqstream/quality.yaml:158

• The justification calls this a "non-requirement grouping node", but it is still a requirement entry in the ReqStream model. This wording is self-contradictory and can confuse traceability/audit readers; consider describing it as a non-atomic (grouping) requirement instead.

          This requirement is satisfied by its children: it is a non-requirement grouping
          node, and verification evidence is carried by each atomic child requirement's tests.

• Files reviewed: 10/10 changed files
• Comments generated: 2
• Review effort level: Lite

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[Copilot]

🟢 Approval recommended

The changes are consistent, well-formed, and limited to traceability/configuration updates (plus the tool bump) with no functional product code modifications.

Review details

• Files reviewed: 10/10 changed files
• Comments generated: 0 new
• Review effort level: Lite