Infrastructure for Methodology Compliance Checking

Methodology compliance checking requires methodology documentation structured as machine-readable rules: IF Project.Type = 'ERP Implementation' AND Project.Phase = 'Design' THEN Required.Artifacts INCLUDES ['Solution Architecture Document', 'Data Migration Plan', 'Integration Specification']. This is not merely documented methodology — it requires formal specification of phase gate requirements, mandatory artifact checklists, and approved deviation patterns that the AI can evaluate against. Generic narrative methodology documents cannot drive automated compliance scoring without this formalization.

Compliance checking requires systematic capture of project artifacts into repositories where the AI can access and analyze them against methodology requirements. Mandated upload workflows ensure deliverables are deposited at project milestones. Phase-gated project closure processes in PSA create natural capture triggers — when a project moves from Design to Build, the system checks what was deposited for Design phase compliance. Without systematic capture, the compliance checker evaluates an incomplete artifact set and produces false-negative compliance gaps.

Compliance scoring requires that project artifacts carry consistent metadata — project type, phase, deliverable type — so the system can match artifacts against methodology requirements for that project context. The ps-km taxonomy provides this structure at L3: deliverable type classifications and project phase taxonomy enable the compliance checker to evaluate 'does this project folder contain a document classified as Deliverable.Type = Solution Architecture for Phase = Design?' Without consistent schema, artifact identification relies on filename pattern matching, which is unreliable.

Compliance checking requires programmatic access to project artifact repositories to retrieve documents and their metadata for analysis. API access to SharePoint or Confluence enables bulk retrieval of project folder contents. The system can query 'all documents in Project X's Design phase folder' and compare against the formalized requirement checklist. NLP analysis of document content (to verify the artifact contains required sections, not just exists with the right name) requires text extraction from binary formats via available parsing APIs.

Methodology compliance checking is peculiarly tolerant of maintenance gaps in the ps-km context: the methodology itself is updated annually at most, and formalized compliance rules change slowly. However, what consultants actually produce evolves faster than the documented methodology — teams develop new artifact types and approaches that the compliance checker flags as deviations. At L2, the compliance rules are refreshed when someone specifically reports that the checker is producing false positives, which is reactive but functional given methodology change velocity.

Methodology compliance checking primarily needs access to document repositories (to retrieve artifacts) and a mechanism to deliver compliance reports to project leads or quality managers. Point integration between the checking engine and document repositories covers the core workflow. Integration with PSA (to trigger compliance checks at phase gates) or CRM (to correlate compliance scores with project outcomes) would add value but is not available given the standalone knowledge repository architecture in the ps-km baseline.