1. CI R1 LCO Review Panel Preliminary Report

2. General Comments –Provide clear definition of the goals of the phase (e.g. inception), the scope, etc. in order that the review panel may better understand their overall charge –The presentations and demonstrations need to be focused on answering the charge questions The link between use-cases and requirements need to be established Risks need to be identified –For future LCO reviews, the risks need to be addressed at the beginning of the review –Demonstrations need to be better orchestrated and explained in the context of the what was demonstrated and what risks were mitigated.

3. General Recommendations –Explicitly identify the risks that were addressed by all prototype efforts and document the lessons learned –Explicitly document trace of use-cases to requirements –Review the L4 requirements and ensure they are tagged with the correct release –Need to clearly define the scope of Release 1 and by what metrics will success be judged Need to articulate the specific set of features and functionality will be available for Release 1 (e.g. how much of COI and CEI will be working) –Document more explicitly the release strategy –Provide evaluation of the risk of there being a lack of effective communication and collaboration among a geographically diverse team Prioritize the creation and implementation of the communication plan –Establish a mechanism to document and track risks shared across IOs –Enter the CI Architecture Documents (e.g. 2010-02-23_CI-Architecture_LCO- Baseline.pdf) into CM control and provide with a CI document number. –Provide analysis and rationale for data sizing estimates to be expected during the 1 st year of operation.

4. Architecture Findings –There are inconsistencies with several architectural diagrams. Specifically 2660-00002 and the use of specific terminology. –Architecture diagrams need to be reviewed for possible updates (and any changes need to be coordinated in accordance with the CMP) Comments –Only present elements of the architecture that are relevant to the release under review Recommendations –No recommendations

5. COI Findings –The approach is deemed to be adequate and well thought out to address the requirements Comments –There is an uncertainty over the complexity of the governance model and the potential to add excessive overhead Recommendations –Continue to prototype and test the COI under increasing and more realistic loading conditions

6. CEI Findings –The approach is deemed to be adequate and well thought out to address the requirements Comments –No additional comments Recommendations –Need to document scalability metrics as well as the derivation and analysis for specific values –Review the SLA for commercial cloud vendors for any potential impact –Better analyze and document the risk associated with fault detection and diagnosis in this widely distributed system

7. S&A Findings –The approach is deemed to be adequate and well thought out to address the requirements Comments –Sensor interfaces are critical and need to be assured they are “correct” and do not introduce excessive latencies or impact reliability Recommendations –Establish improved coordination with the marine IOs with respect to the overall S&A architecture –Document more complete list of sensor meta-data by LCA

8. Data Management Findings –The approach is deemed to be adequate and well thought out to address the requirements –The approach for representing and mapping data is deemed to be sufficient Comments –No additional comments Recommendations –Need to establish a quality rating system for user-defined meta data –Need to consider all sensors and other resources when establishing the common data model (and not just consider the IOOS case)

9. User Interface Experience Findings –The UI concepts and strategy were insufficiently articulated to provide meaningful feedback at this point Comments –Need to be mindful of the point of need with respect to where users naturally use data (e.g. everything should not require a web browser) –Need to ensure the science user requirements adequately flow to detailed L4 requirements Recommendations –Document the UI vision and strategy –Document the specific interactions that will be available to the users –Mock up the UIs and get early feedback from the user community

10. CyberPoPs and Network Findings –No findings Comments –Need to investigate alternative network providers in case the proposed set is unable to deliver in the future Recommendations –Need to ensure network hardware (e.g. firewalls) do not add excessive latencies and throughput –Need to be mindful of the trade-offs associated with increased security requirements with respect to performance

11. ITV Findings –The proposed strategy is sufficiently articulated for this stage in the life-cycle Comments –No additional comments Recommendations –Provide a more detailed ITV strategy specific to Release 1 by LCA

12. Elaboration Plan Findings –The elaboration plan is sufficiently articulated Comments –No additional comments Recommendations –Get started!!