PRSD-IWS case study
Wayfinder / Case study / Nine synthesis views

This view contains identified evidence gaps.

Deployment evidence

In this document

What is deployed where, and is that known from repository declarations or a verified runtime observation?

No component-to-deployment-target assignment can be established from the supplied material. The deployment chapter reports source-level operational mechanisms but explicitly leaves production topology, hosting, database connectivity and release procedures unresolved. It does not report a verified runtime placement. C10

Read this view as a distinction between repository declarations and runtime observations, not as a production inventory:

  • Web application composition: retained reports describe MVC controller registration, OWIN cookie authentication, API-client registration and configuration-selected local or client-based virus scanning. These establish application wiring, not the machines, sites or environments hosting those components. E0520 E0510
  • Test-project declarations: the virus API test project declares .NET Framework 4.8 and Debug/Release output directories; the main API unit-test project also declares .NET Framework 4.8. Framework targets and build-output directories do not establish deployment placement or the runtime version of the services under test. E0504 E0506
  • Database-tool configuration: the migration utility declares .NET Framework 4.8, a default database name of EA.CoreTest and a local SQL Express fallback when its server setting is empty. It constructs arguments and launches AliaSQL. This identifies a configured migration destination, not evidence that application components or schemas were successfully deployed there. E0513

The model is therefore intentionally empty: none of these declarations supports a deployed_to relationship, and the supplied reports do not establish a runtime-observed assignment. C10 E0513

Elements

Relationships

Gaps

  • Hosting and environment mapping: the deployment chapter leaves the hosting platform, IIS sites, application-pool identities, database topology and environment-specific configuration unresolved. Follow-up should obtain deployment manifests and deployed hosting configuration before assigning components to targets. C10
  • Component placement: the chapters do not establish which web, API, scanning, email and document-generation components are deployed together or separately. Obtain release inventories and environment-specific registrations to resolve these boundaries. C01 C02
  • Runtime verification: no supplied report establishes a verified component placement in a named environment. Follow-up should retain a dated runtime inventory tied to deployed artefacts, rather than treating source registration or unit-test expectations as runtime observations. C10 C13
  • Migration scope and outcome: the evidenced utility belongs to a shared-core integration-test database project. Its local defaults must not be promoted to the IWS production database target; AliaSQL semantics and successful migration outcomes remain unestablished. Obtain the actual deployment invocation, effective settings and migration logs. E0513
  • Framework uncertainty: the executive chapter reports different project framework targets, while the supplied underlying test and utility reports establish only their own 4.8 declarations. A single application-wide deployed framework cannot be recovered from those declarations. C01 E0504 E0506 E0513

Recovery limitations

  • No supported relationships reconstructed.
  • Required concepts not established: component, target

Sources

  • C01 — SHA256 64f6d1401664e4822834ff5cc3e8dca458e7fb9abd7922a987008f5e7d194651
  • C02 — SHA256 5f0242dead31d39b1254a75032bb6e91eb76df06330b351c7542819e8ed170b4
  • C10 — SHA256 6ca1acb64b4f356fc274bdf340f0ce48a5f37133e0b9d2da632a9ba794dc90c0
  • C13 — SHA256 dcf5d28a1fd98f96c47d45d0c36fe14dbc886f8e2ff64db73d8bc1fa277e4c61
  • E0504 — SHA256 8679bd13a702cf51de0b35a335e9de4f1ce5d5c18181fbdc70ff985b7c0da82e
  • E0506 — SHA256 f5d0243a92115257c54bf8a8b1235556045a6da0bfe20a56054c57407c52a3a1
  • E0510 — SHA256 2664b03966f4bb1abf42bd2eda4e9ceba87b6c6bbc8a90acbeadf144ba34d0af
  • E0513 — SHA256 c2453643b1013b2376377ceb1664cef6dee407e49aa184f2db4df364ec482e84
  • E0520 — SHA256 a6466041fb1ea9a66a9b9615e373244c82681b7349e12eb1a26c821edf9f16d9

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Original public repository. This independent Harten analysis was not commissioned, approved or endorsed by DEFRA or the Environment Agency.

Analysed source-archive hash is recorded; its exact upstream Git commit has not been established. The generated material does not establish complete requirements, operational security or functional equivalence.