Phase 2: Software Design Review
Process Overview
The purpose of the Software Design review (Phase 2) is to ensure that all outputs of the Software Design phase satisfy the criteria required to proceed to Phase 3 (Software Development). This review validates that software requirements, architecture, test plans, and related procedural documents are complete and ready for implementation.
According to GP-012, Phase 2 establishes the input data for development and initiates parallel procedures for risk management, clinical evaluation, cybersecurity, AI/ML development, and usability.
| Information |
|---|
| Device name | Legit.Health Plus (hereinafter, the device) |
| Model and type | NA |
| Version | 1.1.0.0 |
| Basic UDI-DI | 8437025550LegitCADx6X |
| Certificate number (if available) | MDR 792790 |
| EMDN code(s) | Z12040192 (General medicine diagnosis and monitoring instruments - Medical device software) |
| GMDN code | 65975 |
| EU MDR 2017/745 | Class IIb |
| EU MDR Classification rule | Rule 11 |
| Novel product (True/False) | TRUE |
| Novel related clinical procedure (True/False) | TRUE |
| SRN | ES-MF-000025345 |
- Project title: Legit.Health Plus Version 1.1.0.0
- Project manager: JD-007 (Technical Manager)
- Review date: [Date to be completed]
- Reviewers: JD-001 (General Manager), JD-003 (Design & Development Manager), JD-007 (Technical Manager), JD-004 (Quality Manager & PRRC)
Planning
| Phase | Object | Done |
|---|
| Phase 1 Product Design Review | Establish input data | ✓ |
| Phase 2 Software Design Review | SRs, Architectural Design and UI Prototypes | ✓ |
| Phase 3 Software Development | Coding, integration and test plan | |
| Phase 4 Software Verification Review | Software version verified and residual anomalies | |
| Phase 5 Product Validation Review | Validation activities, Technical Documentation and DHF | |
Previous Reserves
All reserves from Phase 1 have been addressed and closed.
| N° | Issue from Phase 1 | Resolution | Status |
|---|
| - | No reserves | - | - |
Software Design Outputs Checklist
Software Planning and Specification Documents
Software Requirements Quality
| Criterion | Status | Comments |
|---|
| Requirements are complete | ✓ | All functional and non-functional requirements documented |
| Requirements are understandable | ✓ | Clear, unambiguous language used |
| Requirements are traceable to Product Requirements | ✓ | Traceability matrix established (PR → SRS) |
| Requirements are testable | ✓ | Test criteria defined for each requirement |
| Requirements are uniquely identified | ✓ | Each SRS has unique identifier (GitHub Issues) |
| Requirements include user interface requirements | ✓ | UI/UX requirements documented |
| Requirements include cybersecurity requirements | ✓ | Security requirements traceable to Security Risks |
| Requirements include risk control measures | ✓ | Safety risk controls implemented in software documented |
Parallel Procedures Initiated (Other Procedures Kickoff)
According to GP-012, Phase 2 initiates parallel procedures. The following plans have been established:
Validation Plans
IEC 62304 Compliance Review
Planning (Class B Requirements)
Requirements Analysis (Class B)
| Requirement | Status | Evidence |
|---|
| 5.2 Software Requirements defined and documented | ✓ | R-TF-012-023 Section 4 |
| 5.2.3 Risk control measures in software | ✓ | Risk controls traceable in R-TF-013-002 |
| Requirements complete and verifiable | ✓ | All SRS are testable and traceable |
Architecture (Class B)
| Requirement | Status | Evidence |
|---|
| 5.3.1 Software Architecture documented | ✓ | R-TF-012-023 Section 5 |
| 5.3.2 Interfaces between software elements | ✓ | Component interfaces defined in architecture |
| 5.3.3 SOUP functional requirements specified | ✓ | R-TF-012-023 Section 8 |
| 5.3.4 SOUP hardware/software requirements | ✓ | SOUP prerequisites documented |
| 5.3.6 Architecture verification | ✓ | Architecture reviewed for consistency and feasibility |
Risk Management Integration (Class B)
| Requirement | Status | Evidence |
|---|
| 7.1.1 Hazardous software elements identified | ✓ | R-TF-013-002 |
| 7.1.2-7.1.5 Software risk analysis performed | ✓ | Potential causes and sequences documented in Risk Management Record |
| 7.2 Risk control measures documented | ✓ | Controls traceable to SRS and implementation |
IEC 81001 (Cybersecurity) Compliance Review
| Requirement | Status | Evidence |
|---|
| Security requirements defined | ✓ | R-TF-030-003 |
| Threat model established | ✓ | R-TF-030-002 |
| Security controls defined | ✓ | Security controls traceable to threats and SRS |
Design History File (DHF) Status
| Item | Status | Comments |
|---|
| DHF structure established | ✓ | All documentation organized and accessible |
| All Phase 2 outputs documented | ✓ | Complete documentation available |
| Document version control implemented | ✓ | Git-based version control active |
| Traceability established | ✓ | PR → SRS → Architecture → Test Cases |
Reserves and Pending Actions
| N° | Issue / Action Required | Owner | Targeted Date | Status |
|---|
| - | No reserves identified at this phase | - | - | - |
Conclusion
Review Outcome: The Phase 2 Software Design review has been successfully completed.
Assessment:
- All software design outputs are complete, available, and relevant
- Software Requirements Specification (SRS) is comprehensive, traceable, and testable
- Software architecture is well-defined with clear component interfaces
- All required plans (verification, risk management, clinical, cybersecurity, AI/ML, usability) have been established
- SOUP components have been identified and assessed
- IEC 62304 Class B requirements are satisfied
- IEC 81001 cybersecurity requirements are addressed
- Traceability from Product Requirements to Software Requirements is established
- Design History File is properly organized and up-to-date
Decision: The project is approved to proceed to Phase 3: Software Development.
Next Steps:
- Begin agile iterative development sprints
- Implement software according to SRS and architecture
- Continue parallel procedures (risk management, clinical, cybersecurity, AI/ML, usability)
- Maintain traceability throughout implementation
- Prepare for Phase 3 release candidate review
Approved by:
Signature meaning
The signatures for the approval process of this document can be found in the verified commits at the repository for the QMS. As a reference, the team members who are expected to participate in this document and their roles in the approval process, as defined in Annex I Responsibility Matrix of the GP-001, are:
- Author: Team members involved
- Reviewer: JD-003, JD-004
- Approver: JD-001