Product and System Requirements¶

Document status: Baseline requirements for review and approval. These requirements describe intended product behavior; they do not certify that the current implementation satisfies them.

Product: WhiteLotus AI
Organization: Whitelotus Corporation
Document owner: Product Owner / Engineering
Approval status: Pending
Verification status: Not fully verified
Scope: Initial product and engineering baseline
Last review: Update through the project change-control process

1. Purpose¶

This document defines the functional, non-functional, security, verification, and operational requirements for WhiteLotus AI.

Requirements provide a shared reference for product development, implementation reviews, testing, security assessment, and release decisions. Every requirement must have a unique identifier, a defined acceptance criterion, and traceable verification evidence before it can be considered satisfied.

This document distinguishes between:

• Requirement: what the product is expected to do.
• Implementation status: what has been demonstrated in the current source code.
• Verification evidence: test results or approved review records supporting a compliance claim.
• Approval status: whether the responsible owner has formally accepted the requirement.

The presence of a requirement in this document does not imply that it is implemented, tested, or approved.

2. Product scope¶

2.1 Product objectives¶

WhiteLotus AI is intended to provide an AI-assisted workspace where users can interact with enterprise information, query connected services, and retrieve answers from authorized organizational documents.

The initial product scope includes:

• User authentication and access control.
• Conversational interaction and intent routing.
• Controlled access to approved integration tools.
• Read-only access to the initial set of enterprise integrations.
• Document ingestion and retrieval-augmented question answering.
• Consistent API responses and error handling.
• Operational configuration, logging, monitoring, and testing.

These objectives describe intended scope. Each capability remains subject to implementation verification and release approval.

2.2 Initial integration scope¶

The initial integration scope consists exclusively of the following providers:

• Jira — retrieve projects and issue information within approved access.
• Slack — retrieve channels and channel history within approved access.
• Google Drive — list and search permitted files and metadata.
• Google Gmail — retrieve and search email information within approved access.
• Google Calendar — retrieve calendar events within approved access.
• Microsoft Teams — retrieve teams, channels, messages, and related information only where supported and authorized.

The approved initial behavior is read-only. The application may retrieve, search, list, and display information permitted by the user's identity, provider permissions, and approved scopes.

Creating, modifying, sending, deleting, sharing, or otherwise changing data in a connected provider is outside the approved initial scope.

2.3 Scope exclusions¶

Unless explicitly approved through change control, the initial release excludes:

• Sending, drafting, forwarding, or replying to email through integrations.
• Creating or modifying calendar events.
• Creating, editing, moving, copying, sharing, starring, or deleting Drive content.
• Creating or modifying Jira issues.
• Sending Slack messages or changing Slack content.
• Sending Microsoft Teams messages or modifying Teams content.
• Any additional integration provider outside the six listed above.

Local application operations, such as managing a user's own sessions or knowledge-base records, must be governed by their own authorization and data-management requirements. The read-only provider policy does not automatically prohibit legitimate local application administration.

2.4 Requirement lifecycle at a glance¶

flowchart TD
    A(["Draft Requirement"])
    B["Owner Review \n and \n Approval"]
    C["Design \n and \n Implementation"]
    D["Define \n and \n Execute \n Verification"]
    E["Review Evidence"]
    F["Record Defect \n or \n Gap"]
    G(["Verified"])
    H(["Release Decision"])

    A --> B
    B -->|Approved| C
    B -->|Changes Requested| A
    C --> D
    D -->|Evidence Passes| E
    D -->|Evidence Fails| F
    F --> C
    E -->|Accepted| G
    E -->|Rejected \n or \n Incomplete| F
    G --> H

    %% Pastel fills with distinct, colored outlines.
    classDef requirement fill:#EDE9FE,stroke:#7C3AED,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#3B267A
    classDef review fill:#E8F0FE,stroke:#2563EB,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#23345B
    classDef implementation fill:#E0F7FA,stroke:#0891B2,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#164E63
    classDef verification fill:#FFF2CC,stroke:#D97706,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#7C3E00
    classDef defect fill:#FCE8E6,stroke:#DC2626,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#7F1D1D
    classDef verified fill:#DDF5E5,stroke:#059669,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#16452B

    class A requirement
    class B,E review
    class C implementation
    class D verification
    class F defect
    class G,H verified

    %% Consistent connectors for dark and light modes.
    linkStyle default stroke:#9CA3AF,stroke-width:1.3px

3. Requirement status model¶

Use the following statuses consistently. A status describes the requirement's lifecycle, not the maturity of the whole product.

4. Functional requirements¶

The tables below are the normative functional baseline. Requirement statements use shall to indicate mandatory behavior within the stated scope. Status labels such as To verify indicate that compliance has not yet been established.

4.1 Identity and access control¶

4.2 Conversational processing and tool dispatch¶

4.3 Read-only integration requirements¶

4.4 Knowledge base and retrieval¶

4.5 API and service behavior¶

4.6 Configuration and maintainability¶

5. Non-functional requirements¶

Numeric targets must be approved by the product owner and engineering owner before they become release gates. Do not infer service-level objectives from current implementation defaults.

For each approved measurable target, record:

• Metric and target value.
• Measurement method and observation window.
• Test or monitoring data source.
• Workload and environment assumptions.
• Responsible owner.
• Approval date and review date.

requirement_id: NFR-003
metric: response_latency
percentile: p95
target: "<approved threshold>"
workload: "<approved workload profile>"
environment: "<target environment>"
measurement_window: "<approved duration>"
owner: "<responsible owner>"
approval_status: pending

6. Security and authorization requirements¶

7. Testing and verification requirements¶

7.1 Verification levels¶

Use the level appropriate to the requirement. A single feature may require evidence from more than one level.

7.2 Test evidence¶

7.3 Minimum test record¶

Each verification record should identify, as applicable, the requirement ID, test-case ID, tested version or commit, environment, preconditions, steps, expected result, observed result, execution timestamp, outcome, evidence location, and reviewer.

Requirement: FR-014
Test case: <test-case identifier>
Build or commit: <tested version>
Environment: <environment identifier>
Expected: Write-capable provider operation is denied by trusted backend policy.
Observed: <record actual result>
Outcome: <pass | fail | blocked>
Evidence: <link to test report or artifact>
Reviewer: <reviewer>

The example is a record template, not evidence that the test has passed.

8. Acceptance criteria¶

A requirement may be marked Verified only when all applicable criteria are satisfied:

1. The requirement has an unambiguous, testable statement.
2. Preconditions, expected outcomes, and relevant failure cases are defined.
3. Verification cases cover required positive, negative, and boundary conditions.
4. Tests or approved manual verification have been executed against an identified version.
5. Results and relevant artifacts are recorded and reviewable.
6. Security and privacy implications have been reviewed where applicable.
7. Known failures and exceptions are documented, assigned, and handled according to the approved release policy.
8. The responsible owner has accepted the evidence.
9. The requirement is linked to the relevant source change, issue, test record, or release record where applicable.

For security-critical requirements and the initial read-only policy, unresolved failures block approval of the affected capability unless a formally authorized exception explicitly permits otherwise.

8.1 Evidence flow¶

flowchart TD
    R(["Requirement ID"])
    D["Design \n or \n Component"]
    I["Implementation \n Change"]
    T["Test Case"]
    V["Recorded \n Verification \n Result"]
    A["Owner Review"]
    S(["Verified"])
    G["Gap \n or \n Defect Recorded"]

    R --> D
    D --> I
    I --> T
    T --> V
    V --> A
    A -->|Accepted| S
    A -->|Rejected or Incomplete| G
    G --> I

    %% Pastel fills and colored outlines.
    classDef requirement fill:#EDE9FE,stroke:#7C3AED,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#3B267A
    classDef implementation fill:#E0F7FA,stroke:#0891B2,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#164E63
    classDef verification fill:#FFF2CC,stroke:#D97706,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#7C3E00
    classDef review fill:#E8F0FE,stroke:#2563EB,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#23345B
    classDef verified fill:#DDF5E5,stroke:#059669,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#16452B
    classDef defect fill:#FCE8E6,stroke:#DC2626,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#7F1D1D

    class R requirement
    class D,I implementation
    class T,V verification
    class A review
    class S verified
    class G defect

    %% Neutral connectors for dark and light theme compatibility.
    linkStyle default stroke:#9CA3AF,stroke-width:1.3px

9. Traceability and change control¶

Each requirement shall be traceable through the delivery lifecycle:

Requirement → Design or component → Implementation change → Test case → Verification result → Release decision

Changes to requirements must record:

• Requirement ID and proposed change.
• Reason and business justification.
• Affected services, integrations, APIs, data models, and documentation.
• Compatibility and migration impact.
• Security and privacy impact.
• Acceptance-test changes.
• Responsible owner and approver.
• Decision, date, and linked issue or merge request.

No requirement should be silently removed, weakened, or marked complete merely because implementation is inconvenient or incomplete.

9.1 Example requirement record¶

The following illustrates a traceability record structure. Placeholder values must be replaced with real project references before use.

requirement_id: FR-014
statement: Deny state-changing operations for all initial provider integrations.
owner: "<assigned owner>"
implementation_reference: "<merge request or commit>"
test_cases:
  - "<provider-specific denial test>"
evidence: "<test report or artifact URL>"
status: "Required; verification pending"
approval_reference: "<approval record, when available>"

10. Known verification priorities¶

The following areas require explicit evidence before the relevant release claims can be approved:

1. Read-only enforcement: confirm that write-capable tools and routes are denied across all six integrations, including direct invocation paths.
2. Trusted confirmation: confirm that model-generated claims cannot satisfy trusted authorization or confirmation requirements.
3. OAuth and user isolation: verify provider scopes, token handling, connection ownership, refresh behavior, and internal-service authentication.
4. Input and error handling: verify schema validation, pagination and date boundaries, provider failure handling, and secret redaction.
5. Knowledge-base isolation: verify document access controls during ingestion, indexing, retrieval, and answer generation.
6. Test evidence: execute the required tests and record results against the release candidate.
7. Non-functional targets: obtain approval for measurable performance, availability, capacity, and recovery targets.

These are verification priorities, not a declaration that every listed area contains a confirmed defect. Confirmed defects should be recorded separately with reproducible evidence and linked remediation work.

11. Release acceptance¶

The product shall not be declared compliant with this requirements baseline merely because the documentation builds or the application starts successfully.

Before release approval:

• Required product requirements are approved.
• Critical security and authorization requirements pass verification.
• The six initial integrations satisfy the approved read-only policy.
• Required regression and integration tests pass, with exceptions formally recorded.
• Deployment configuration and secret handling are reviewed.
• Applicable non-functional targets are approved and verified.
• Open risks, deferred requirements, and known limitations are documented.
• The release decision identifies the tested version and responsible approver.

12. Document maintenance¶

Review this document when product scope, security policy, integrations, architecture, APIs, or release criteria change.

Implementation status must be updated from source review and test evidence rather than assumptions. Changes to this document must follow the project's documentation and change-control process.

Related documentation¶

Document control: update requirement status only when supported by reviewed implementation details and recorded verification evidence. For terms such as RAG and OAuth, consult the relevant architecture and integration documentation for implementation-specific details.