CDP — QA BAU

Standing QA workstream for the CDP squad. Not a product initiative, bucket, or capacity-estimated program. It has no PRDs, roadmap ## Priority row, or effort_*_days.

Current Epic	TF-3521 — 26Q3 CDP - QA Automation Coverage & Deployment Support
Project	TF
Owners	Gregorius Hendry (automation lead) · Muhammad Izzul (deployment-verification lead / backup)
Peers	Chatbot BOT-4609 · Bifrost BIF-8869

What belongs here

Workstream	Practice	Outcome
Increase automation coverage	Regression gaps from shipped changes, retests, and escaped defects; stabilize flaky tests/data	Release-critical flows have reliable automated coverage
Support regular deployments	Pre-release scope/env readiness, agreed checks, post-deploy smoke; report result or blocker	Each deployment has timely QA confidence and a recorded outcome
Test ops (as needed)	Testcase-management migration, suite hygiene, tooling that unblocks the two streams above	QA can execute without process/tooling drag

What does not belong here

Work	Route instead
Feature / initiative human QA (story acceptance)	Product initiative's executable Epic + Task/Bug split from that Story
Eng-owned test infrastructure or platform work	Engineering Initiatives · TF-3500
Product defects found in verification	File the Bug under the owning product/engineering executable Epic and split it from the owning Story; optionally relate it to the BAU verification Task

Jira item contract

For every discrete BAU outcome, create a Jira item before starting work (manual or AI-assisted; never jira-sync / main-full):

1. Project TF · parent Epic = current jira_epic on this file (today TF-3521).
2. Type: Task for planned automation or deployment support · Bug only when the QA tooling or BAU mechanism itself is broken. Product defects use the owning executable Epic.
3. Sprint: put finish-this-window work on the active CDP board sprint; otherwise leave backlog.
4. Summary prefix (required):
   • QA Automation — <flow> regression coverage
   • QA Deployment Support — <service/release> verification
5. Body: assignee; affected service/flow; related initiative/release/incident; gap or deployment trigger; checks to run; expected evidence.
6. Done note: outcome, residual risk, and follow-up keys.

BAU Tasks do not require PRD user-story Stories under this Epic. Optional local Stories under the quarter Epic are allowed only as QA planning containers, never as product AC mirrors.

Product-defect routing

Product defects discovered through BAU follow the owning product or engineering Epic and are split from the owning Story; the BAU Task may be related for discovery traceability.

Quarter Epic rollover

The workstream is durable; the Jira Epic is not. Mint one container Epic per planning quarter, replace jira_epic, and stop filing new-quarter work under the superseded Epic. In-flight work may finish under the old Epic when moving it would add noise without changing ownership.

Alignment and drift

• The current QA BAU Epic is intentionally outside the initiative map.
• Alignment and sprint-drift audits should treat it as a known non-initiative Epic.
• The allow-list source of truth is this file's jira_epic, mirrored from the team landing page and active sprint plan.

Capacity

QA BAU fills gaps between initiative QA. It is not sized as initiative effort_qa_days; see capacity.md. Initiative commitments continue to determine QA load.