test-plan-and-closurelisted

# test-plan-and-closure — the two documents someone above the tester reads Every other artefact QAIA produces is consumed by a tester: a test book, a suite, a score, a defect report. The two ends of the ISTQB test process — **planning** and **closure** — produce the documents a *manager* reads, and QAIA produced neither. That is not only a conformance gap. A project whose every output is read by testers alone speaks to nobody who decides. ## The rule that keeps these two documents from being wallpaper **Nothing in a plan or a closure report may be written that is not derivable from an artefact.** A test plan generated by a language model is, by default, template-filling: it will happily produce "risks: integration issues, tight deadlines" for any project on earth, because it read the shape of a plan and not this project. Such a document costs a signature and returns nothing. So every section below names **where its content comes from**. If the source artefact does not exist, the section says so — *"no risk analysis available: `prioritize` was not run"* is a useful sentence. An invented risk is not. ## The plan Written before or at the start of a campaign, from what the pipeline already holds. | Section | Derived from | If missing | |---|---|---| | Scope — what is under test | the ingested requirement (`us-ingest`, `openapi-ingest`) | there is no plan to write | | Out of scope | the requirement's silences and [ADR 0004](https://github.com/QAIA-Project/QAIA/blob/main/d