The .source-approved entry criteria in entry.universal might have stale wording or be irrelevant

[thejayps]

Several recent proc.reviews have taken place where the .source-approved criteria has failed, since there isn't obviously any current workflow convention or procedure that funnels any source material (e.g emails, git issues, historical jobs in perforce...) into any kind of review process. This hasn't blocked any entry so far, and from a logical procedural perspective there may be no issue. However it seems like this entry criteria was written for a different procedural landscape than the current one. If this entry criteria has become stale or irrelevant, we should adapt or remove it. If the underlying intention of this criteria remains relevant, it should be adapted or reworded to reflect current working practices.

[thejayps]

Please can we make this essential. It's always in my experience been a confusing and useless aspect to the review process

[thejayps]

Or we can keep it optional but increase the urgency

[thejayps]

Removed the optional label so that this gets prompt attention

[thejayps]

We could be more specific about excluding certain types of source document that aren't subject to approval

[thejayps]

This leaves other source documents, designs and other docs eg rulesets. We should be considering each time if these are approved and does it matter.

If a customer has expressed a requirement, we should approve our work to develop the statement of the requirement

We could broaden our statement of what it is to be "approved"