There are two ways to approach the resolution of the ticket. The first is to revisit the product tree to requirement mapping to ensure that we all know exactly which requirements in LSE-61 should appear in this flowed down requirements document. We were doing this when we thought that requirements verification would occur at the product level and that verifying at that level would automatically verify LSE-61. With the creation of LDM-639 (
RFC-495) it is not entirely clear any more that copying requirements from LSE-61 directly into a LDM requirements document gains us anything. A scenario where we verify LSE-61 directly and leave product verification to requirements that have been specifically written for them as a refinement of the LSE-61 requirement (such as the jointcal or butler requirements) seems like a more tractable way forward.
If you, Wil O'Mullane, Leanne Guy, and Gabriele Comoretto agree with that approach I'm happy to retire this ticket and remove them from the DM model in MagicDraw.