fix implementation review findings

[RolandJentschETAS]

This pull request makes significant updates to the implementation process requirements and guidance documentation. The main focus is on clarifying the optional nature of detailed design documentation, simplifying and strengthening requirements for diagram and unit/interface attributes, and emphasizing consistency and traceability between documentation and source code. Several redundant or overly prescriptive requirements have been removed, and naming conventions are now highlighted as central for traceability.

Key changes include:

General Requirements and Documentation:

• Clarified that detailed design description files and diagrams are optional, but if provided, must follow specific consistency and traceability rules.
• Updated guidance to stress that naming in diagrams and descriptions must match source code to ensure traceability and prevent outdated or inconsistent documentation. [1] [2]

Diagram and Attribute Requirements:

• Simplified diagram requirements: diagrams now require a unique name (not ID) and a description, with previous mandatory attributes (security, safety, status) and linkage requirements removed. [1] [2] [3]
• Diagram consistency checks now focus on alignment with source code and design principles, rather than checking for a fixed set of mandatory attributes.

Unit and Interface Requirements:

• Replaced unique ID requirements for units and interfaces with a focus on proper, descriptive naming that follows a project-wide convention for traceability.
• Unit and interface descriptions are now required in the source code, with guidance on what the documentation should cover and the importance of keeping it up to date.

Work Product and Editorial Updates:

• Minor editorial improvements for clarity and consistency in the implementation work products documentation. [1] [2] [3]

These changes streamline the documentation process, reduce unnecessary overhead, and ensure that all design artifacts remain consistent with the evolving codebase.

---

References:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

[github-actions]

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

[PandaeDo]

Suggested change

	Each diagram shall have a unique name. It shall consist of three parts:
	Each diagram shall have a unique ID. It shall consist of three parts:

We also named it unique ID in the other requirements like https://eclipse-score.github.io/process_description/pr-717/process_areas/architecture_design/guidance/architecture_process_reqs.html hat are using names. To the aspect to have it similar I would recommend to change it back.

[RolandJentschETAS]

Yes, but thats an different case. In the architecture, we have this all as Sphinx Objects. Here it is simply a plant UML file without any ID. We could only say, that path + filename build the ID.

[PandaeDo]

Whey the attributes are deleted? I guess we should keep them if a diagram is used.

[RolandJentschETAS]

As described above. Units are within a component and inherits all properties from it. Therefore it makes no sense (independently that it would be unclear how to do) to add security and safety to a plantuml / drawio inside the detail design.

[PandaeDo]

Suggested change

	.. gd_req:: Unit naming
	.. gd_req:: Unit attribute: UID

[RolandJentschETAS]

See above

[PandaeDo]

Please also consider text and following text against comment regarding UID / naming

[RolandJentschETAS]

Units have no spinx representation. Therefore it is unclear what a UID shall be.

[PandaeDo]

Suggested change

	.. gd_req:: Unit description
	.. gd_req:: Unit attribute: description

[RolandJentschETAS]

See above

[PandaeDo]

Maybe we should have to sections of process requirements. If they are selected and when we use automations and if not.

[RolandJentschETAS]

Automation is normally with tags