CQA 2.1 Feb 2026 - Release Notes

[anarnold97]

CQA 2.1 Assessment Report - doc-Release_notes

---

• Summary Report

---

Date: February 9, 2026
Documentation Set: doc-Release_notes
Assessment Scope: Pre-migration requirements (Essential/Mandatory)

---

Executive Summary

Category	Before	After	Status
DITA Errors	4	0	✅ PASS
DITA Warnings	4+	0	✅ PASS
Vale Errors	2	0	✅ PASS
Style Warnings	68	68	⚠️ Non-blocking

Result: Documentation is ready for AEM migration.

---

Essential/Mandatory Fixes Applied

1. DITA Structure Issues Fixed

File	Issue	Fix Applied
master.adoc	Missing short description	Added [role="_abstract"] with description
modules/con_troubleshooting-storage-copy-offload.adoc	Missing short description	Added [role="_abstract"]
modules/proc_storage-copy-offload-general-ssh-set-up.adoc	PROCEDURE with sections (invalid DITA task)	Changed to CONCEPT, converted == headings to bold text
modules/proc_storage-copy-offload-vib-set-up.adoc	NOTE blocks outside procedure list	Attached to preceding step with + continuation

2. Vale Configuration Updates

Change	File	Purpose
Excluded common-attributes.adoc from DITA checks	vale.ini	Attributes files are not content modules
Disabled write-good.ThereIs	vale.ini	Per user request to ignore write-good rules

---

Pre-Migration Checklist (CQA 2.1)

Required/Non-Negotiable Items

Requirement	Status
Content passes AsciiDocDITA Vale check with no errors/warnings	✅ PASS
Content is modularized	✅ PASS
Modules use official templates (Concept, Procedure, Reference)	✅ PASS
Assemblies use official template	✅ PASS
Short descriptions present with [role="_abstract"]	✅ PASS
Titles are brief, complete, and descriptive	✅ PASS
No broken links	✅ PASS (no link errors detected)

---

Remaining Warnings (Non-Blocking)

68 RedHat style warnings remain. These are quality improvements but not mandatory for migration:

• CaseSensitiveTerms: OS → operating system, kubernetes → Kubernetes, etc.
• Hyphens: non-compliant → noncompliant, auto-generated → autogenerate
• DoNotUseTerms: "overhead" should be more specific
• Using: "using" → "by using" after nouns
• Slash: SOAP/REST, ESX/ESXi, VMs/disks

These can be addressed post-migration as part of quality improvement work.

---

Files Modified

1. documentation/doc-Release_notes/master.adoc
2. documentation/modules/con_troubleshooting-storage-copy-offload.adoc
3. documentation/modules/proc_storage-copy-offload-general-ssh-set-up.adoc
4. documentation/modules/proc_storage-copy-offload-vib-set-up.adoc

[Jenny-Anne]

Added one comment, otherwise lgtm.

[anarnold97]

Added one comment, otherwise lgtm.

@Jenny-Anne - are you ok if we merge? thanks

[Jenny-Anne]

Added one comment, otherwise lgtm.

@Jenny-Anne - are you ok if we merge? thanks

I'm not sure @anarnold97. Adding the [role="_abstract"] tag and an introductory line to master.adoc files is new, so I'm not 100% sure where this line shows in a published doc. I didn't add that tag to master.adoc files up to now because I wasn't sure if we were supposed to? Do you want to generate a preview to check? Did you get confirmation somewhere that we're supposed to add the [role="_abstract"] tag to master.adoc files? Sorry to hold things up.

[anarnold97]

Added one comment, otherwise lgtm.

@Jenny-Anne - are you ok if we merge? thanks

I'm not sure @anarnold97. Adding the [role="_abstract"] tag and an introductory line to master.adoc files is new, so I'm not 100% sure where this line shows in a published doc. I didn't add that tag to master.adoc files up to now because I wasn't sure if we were supposed to? Do you want to generate a preview to check? Did you get confirmation somewhere that we're supposed to add the [role="_abstract"] tag to master.adoc files? Sorry to hold things up.

@Jenny-Anne - thanks, let me ask Masha to have a look as I think she spoke to Jaromir about this issue today

[mpershina]

Added one comment, otherwise lgtm.

@Jenny-Anne - are you ok if we merge? thanks

I'm not sure @anarnold97. Adding the [role="_abstract"] tag and an introductory line to master.adoc files is new, so I'm not 100% sure where this line shows in a published doc. I didn't add that tag to master.adoc files up to now because I wasn't sure if we were supposed to? Do you want to generate a preview to check? Did you get confirmation somewhere that we're supposed to add the [role="_abstract"] tag to master.adoc files? Sorry to hold things up.

@Jenny-Anne - thanks, let me ask Masha to have a look as I think she spoke to Jaromir about this issue today

Hi @anarnold97 @Jenny-Anne, there's no requirement to have the abstract tag in master.adoc. It's only for the assemblies and modules that have some content inside. See also Jaromir's reply:

"I don't assume you have conceptual content there, so no, we don't convert them and they don't need annotation or abstracts."

So no need for the abstract in master.adoc.

[anarnold97]

Thanks for the confirmation @mpershina

Are we ok to merge @Jenny-Anne please and thanks