System

Interim QC pass on {{entity:Remote Weapon Station (RWS)}} (se-remote-weapon-station-rws), last QC at session 631. Project stands at 266 requirements across 6 documents: 17 STK, 18 SYS, 84 SUB, 29 IFC, 13 ARC, 105 VER (including 6 homeless entries), with 257 trace links and baseline QC-2026-03-27 cut at end of session.

Findings

Lint (57 medium, 0 high): Dominated by three categories. Nine ontological mismatch findings for {{trait:Physical Medium}} components without material property requirements — these affect {{entity:turret drive assembly}} {{hex:DEF51018}}, {{entity:optical sensor assembly}} {{hex:D6C51018}}, {{entity:safety interlock system}} {{hex:D2B53859}}, {{entity:channel safety controller}} {{hex:D6F51018}}, and others. Nine further findings for {{trait:System-Essential}} components ({{entity:fire control computer}} {{hex:51B73219}}, {{entity:weapon control interface}} {{hex:50F57A19}}, {{entity:target tracking processor}} {{hex:D1F77219}}, {{entity:Tactical Data Link Processor}} {{hex:50F57258}}) flagged as lacking redundancy/failover — false positives, as {{sub:SUB-REQ-020}}, {{sub:SUB-REQ-052}}, and {{sub:SUB-REQ-083}} already specify watchdog timers, safe-state transitions, and warm-restart behaviour for the FCS. A further seven findings for {{trait:Regulated}} and eight for {{trait:Ethically Significant}} components follow the same pattern — ontological traits correctly assigned but the lint engine does not recognise the existing safety argument as addressing those traits.

Genuine coverage gap — 1500m PID range: {{stk:STK-REQ-002}} requires positive target identification at 1500m (day) and 800m (night/obscured). {{sys:SYS-REQ-004}} addresses resolution via IFOV (0.3 mrad, referenced in rationale to Johnson criteria at 1500m) but does not state the identification range in the requirement text itself, creating a traceability gap where the acceptance criterion lives only in the rationale column. This is the kind of gap that loses visibility in compliance matrices.

Degraded mode quantification gap: {{stk:STK-REQ-012}} specified “reduced weapon engagement capability” without measurable thresholds — a direct violation of the degraded-mode rule. The derived {{sys:SYS-REQ-011}} had correct quantified thresholds (200m, Phit, manual tracking) but the STK-level requirement remained unquantified, breaking the traceability chain from stakeholder need to acceptance criterion.

Spray patterns: 14 of 17 SYS requirements have 5+ SUB derivation links (worst: {{sys:SYS-REQ-008}} with 20, {{sys:SYS-REQ-016}} with 12, {{sys:SYS-REQ-013}} with 14). All 257 trace links carry rationale. For {{sys:SYS-REQ-008}} — the IEC 61508 (Functional safety of E/E/PE safety-related systems) SIL 3 hardware interlock requirement — the cascade to all subsystems with a firing path is genuine, not mechanical; each link explains which component of the independent interlock chain the child requirement implements.

Homeless VER entries: Six VER requirements (VER-REQ-027, VER-REQ-028, VER-REQ-050, VER-REQ-055, VER-REQ-068, VER-REQ-102) have null documentSlug and internal IDs (REQ-SEREMOTEWEAPONSTATIONRWS-001 through 006) that the reassign endpoint resolves to 404. This is a server-side data integrity issue; the requirements appear in list output and the baseline, but the individual-requirement endpoint returns not found regardless of which identifier format is used.

Corrections

STK-REQ-012 updated with quantified minimum thresholds: engagement range ≥ 200m, Phit ≥ 0.5 against a 2m × 2m stationary target when operating on the surviving sensor modality, with both visual and audible operator alert. The 200m and Phit values are consistent with {{sys:SYS-REQ-011}} (derived requirement) and represent minimum suppressive capability against an RPG threat from a vehicle-mounted platform.

SYS-REQ-018 created — the explicit 1500m/800m positive target identification range requirement. Text: “The Remote Weapon Station SHALL achieve positive target identification of a NATO standard target (2.3m × 2.3m wheeled vehicle) at a range of not less than 1500m in daylight conditions and not less than 800m in night or obscured conditions using the dual-mode EO/TI sensor suite.” Trace link {{stk:STK-REQ-002}} → {{sys:SYS-REQ-018}} created. Verification entry {{sys:VER-REQ-105}} created specifying a 10-target field trial at calibrated ranges with 9/10 pass criterion. {{sys:SYS-REQ-018}} will eventually also trace to {{sub:SUB-REQ-031}} (EOSA sensor selection) and {{sub:SUB-REQ-065}} (tracker sensor handoff) — those links should be created in the next decomposition session once reviewed against subsystem text.

Lint baseline saved for the false-positive ontological mismatch findings. These are acknowledged: the RWS specification has extensive safety argument across SIS, FCS watchdog, and hardware interlock chains that satisfies the trait-driven concerns but does not use the specific vocabulary the lint engine pattern-matches on. Baseline QC-2026-03-27 cut at 266 requirements / 257 links.

flowchart TB
  n0["system<br>Remote Weapon Station (RWS)"]
  n1["subsystem<br>Electro-Optical Sensor Assembly (EOSA)"]
  n2["subsystem<br>Fire Control System (FCS)"]
  n3["subsystem<br>Turret Drive Assembly (TDA)"]
  n4["subsystem<br>Operator Control Unit (OCU)"]
  n5["subsystem<br>Safety Interlock System (SIS)"]
  n6["subsystem<br>Weapon and Ammo Handling (WAH)"]
  n7["subsystem<br>Power Distribution Unit (PDU)"]
  n8["subsystem<br>Communications Interface Unit (CIU)"]
  n1 -->|Sensor video, target data| n2
  n2 -->|Servo commands, pointing| n3
  n2 -->|Fire request, arm status| n5
  n5 -->|Fire enable/inhibit| n6
  n5 -->|Drive enable, brake cmd| n3
  n4 -->|Operator commands| n2
  n2 -->|Display data, video| n4
  n4 -->|E-STOP, arm/safe| n5
  n7 -.->|28V/12V/5V power| n1
  n7 -.->|12V/5V power| n2
  n7 -.->|28V drive power| n3
  n8 -->|GPS, BMS target data| n2
  n2 -->|Video export, status| n8

Residual

Six homeless VER requirements cannot be reassigned due to server-side inconsistency between the list endpoint and individual requirement lookup. They carry correct trace links (verified against the project linkset) and appear in the baseline, but their documentSlug will remain null until the AIRGen API issue is resolved. Not a correctness problem, but breaks document-view completeness counts.

Twenty lint coverage gap findings (findings 39–57 in the original report) flag stakeholder concepts such as “vehicle commander”, “tactical commander”, and “standard tools” as lacking SYS/SUB counterparts. These are concept-label mismatches rather than genuine gaps — the capabilities are covered by requirements whose text uses different terminology (e.g., “operator” rather than “vehicle commander”). These are suppressed in the baseline.

The five empty internal block diagrams (WAH, TDA, EOSA, OCU, PDU internal views) are a presentation gap rather than a requirements gap; the subsystem requirements exist and are traced. Populating those diagrams is decomposition-session work, not QC work.

Next

Ready for another decomposition pass on the remaining empty diagrams (WAH, TDA, EOSA, OCU, PDU internal views) or a validation pass if the project lead judges the requirement set complete. The PID range fix (SYS-REQ-018 → SUB trace links to EOSA and FCS tracker subsystem requirements) should be completed in the next session.