Require the ability to extract evidence used by a rule set

This enhancement has been created to track the requirement to be able to extract the evidence used by a rule set into a simple text based form, that could be used for the following purposes:

a) Produce training documentation that describes the evidence used as part of a given rule set.
b) Perform an impact analysis on a rule set to determine new dependencies

A decision needs to be made as to the best implementation approach to take for this, e.g would this lie within the CER Editor, CADG, or other existing tooling such as ruledoc.

Below are further requirements provided by the customer in terms of the context of the usage of the information extracted.

1) Can you confirm from where this information is expected to be retrieved, i.e. the tool is meant to retrieve information on all of the evidence that could potentially be used by a rule set as configured within the administrative application, vs. the evidence that was actually used during the execution of a rule set during runtime.

Yes. The evidence propogated into a specific ruleset for potential use in that ruleset evaluation.

2) What is the role of the training documentation? Is the documentation trying to convey the usage and behaviour of the rules?

It is to aid a worker (and a business person trying to aid that worker by designing the support) understand what evidence is relevant to a ruleset given there may be a number of rulesets pointing at common evidence and only some of the entire evidence set may be potentially be used by a given ruleset.

3) What type of user(s) is expected to retrieve information about the evidence used by a rule set for use in producing training documentation? Is this a developer, a business analyst, an information developer?

All of the above but if it starts with a business analyst (not a developer) it can be used as a basis for e.g. workers.

4) Is the use of the tool required to be autonomous, i.e. if the user(s) retrieving the information is not a developer, it is expected that the information can be retrieved without having a dependency on developers providing additional information?

Yes. A business analyst should be able to perform this as they are expected to be able to understand rulesets and their structure.

5) Is there a requirement to retrieve this information about the evidence used by rules provided OOTB in product as well as custom rules?

Should work on a ruleset level. Whether an OOTB or customized rule set is pointed at.

6) Is there a requirement to retrieve this information about both dynamic and static evidence used by rules?

Yes. They are evidence used by rules.

7) What type of user(s) is expected to use the training documentation?

Workers when it becomes training document.

8) What are some examples of the types of questions that need to be answered by a user using the training documentation, e.g. it is just to understand that rule set A can potentially end up retrieving and using evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence n... during its execution, or are there other types of questions to be answered and if so what are they?

For this PMR the evidence that can potentially be used.

9) What type of user(s) is expected to retrieve information about the evidence used by a rule set for use in determining new dependencies? Is this a different type of user than will be retrieving the information for the purpose of producing training documentation?

See above

10) What are examples of the types of dependencies that this user(s) is trying to discover and understand, i.e. what are they trying to do, e.g. understand that a particular piece of evidence is used by multiple rule sets?

See above