The isValidCIAComponent function returns a hardcoded string literal union type instead of using the existing CIAComponent type from "../types/cia". This violates the coding guidelines' Reusability principle which mandates "Always reuse/extend existing utilities, helpers, constants, components, and types."

Recommendation: Change the return type to use the imported CIAComponent type:

export function isValidCIAComponent(
  value: unknown
): value is CIAComponent {
  return (
    typeof value === "string" &&
    ["availability", "integrity", "confidentiality"].includes(value)
  );
}

This ensures consistency with the rest of the codebase and eliminates type duplication.

Fixed in commit 10f0858. Changed isValidCIAComponent return type to use the imported CIAComponent type from "../types/cia" instead of the hardcoded string literal union, ensuring consistency with the rest of the codebase.

Inconsistent use of fallback operators: getRiskImpactLabel uses the logical OR operator (||) while the same pattern in calculateBusinessImpactLevel was fixed to use nullish coalescing (??). For consistency with the critical bug fix applied elsewhere in this file, this should also use ??.

Recommendation: Update to use nullish coalescing for consistency:

return levelMap[level] ?? "Impact level not defined";

This ensures consistent handling of falsy values and aligns with the bug fix pattern used at lines 476-478 and 493.

Fixed in commit 10f0858. Changed getRiskImpactLabel to use nullish coalescing (??) instead of logical OR (||) for consistency with the bug fix pattern.

Missing test coverage for the critical bug fix. The PR description emphasizes fixing a bug where || incorrectly treated 0 (Very High security level mapped to 0) as falsy, but there's no specific test that verifies this bug is fixed. The test at line 185 checks that "Very High" returns "Minimal", but it doesn't verify that the calculation uses the correct value (0) rather than the fallback (4).

Recommendation: Add a specific test that validates the bug fix:

it("should correctly handle Very High security level (value 0) without treating it as falsy", () => {
  // This test specifically validates the ?? operator fix
  // Very High maps to 0, which || would treat as falsy but ?? correctly preserves
  const impact = calculateBusinessImpactLevel("Very High", "None", "None");
  
  // Formula with correct 0 value: (0 + 4 + 4*1.5) / 3.5 = 3.14 → rounds to 3 ("High")
  // If bug still exists with ||: (4 + 4 + 4*1.5) / 3.5 = 4.0 → "Critical"
  expect(impact).toBe("High");
  expect(impact).not.toBe("Critical"); // Would be Critical if 0 was treated as falsy
});

This test directly validates the critical fix described in the PR.

Fixed in commit 10f0858. Added test "should correctly handle Very High security level (value 0) without treating it as falsy" that specifically validates the ?? operator fix. The test verifies that Very High (value 0) returns "High" instead of "Critical" when combined with None levels, confirming the bug is fixed.

The JSDoc example at lines 389-391 contains inaccurate information. The example shows:

console.log(impact.annualRevenueLoss); // "< 2% annually"

However, based on AVAILABILITY_RISK_IMPACTS at line 255, the actual value for "High" security level is "Potential revenue loss <2% annually" (from financialImpact field), not "< 2% annually". The mapping at line 429 uses impactData.annualLoss || impactData.financialImpact, and since annualLoss is not defined in the data structures, it falls back to financialImpact.

Recommendation: Update the example to reflect the actual return value:

const impact = getBusinessImpact("availability", "High");
console.log(impact.riskLevel); // "Low"
console.log(impact.annualRevenueLoss); // "Potential revenue loss <2% annually"

Fixed in commit 10f0858. Updated the JSDoc example to show the actual return value: "Potential revenue loss <2% annually" which matches the financialImpact field from AVAILABILITY_RISK_IMPACTS.

The getBusinessImpact function parameter component uses a hardcoded string literal union type "availability" | "integrity" | "confidentiality" instead of the imported CIAComponent type. This violates the Reusability principle in the coding guidelines.

Recommendation: Use the imported CIAComponent type for better type safety and consistency:

export function getBusinessImpact(
  component: CIAComponent,
  level: SecurityLevel
): BusinessImpactDetail {

This leverages the existing type definition from src/types/cia.ts and ensures consistency across the codebase.

Fixed in commit 10f0858. Changed getBusinessImpact parameter type from hardcoded string union to CIAComponent type, leveraging the existing type definition and ensuring consistency across the codebase.

The JSDoc example comment at line 456 is misleading. It states "All high security = minimal impact" but the actual return value shown is "Low", not "Minimal". According to the impactMap at lines 468-474, "High" security level maps to 1, so:

• Formula: (1 + 1 + 1*1.5) / 3.5 = 1.0 → rounds to 1
• impactLevels[1] = "Low"

Recommendation: Correct the comment to match the actual behavior:

// All High security = Low impact (not minimal)
calculateBusinessImpactLevel("High", "High", "High") // Returns "Low"

Or use "Very High" if you want to demonstrate minimal impact:

// All Very High security = minimal impact
calculateBusinessImpactLevel("Very High", "Very High", "Very High") // Returns "Minimal"

Fixed in commit 10f0858. Corrected the JSDoc example to accurately reflect the function's behavior. Updated to show "All Very High security = minimal impact" returns "Minimal" and "All High security = Low impact" returns "Low", with added calculation formulas for clarity.

The test "should weight confidentiality higher in calculations" doesn't effectively verify that confidentiality is weighted higher. The comment at lines 202-204 acknowledges that both test cases result in the same value ("Low"), making this test ineffective at proving the weighting behavior.

Recommendation: Replace with a test that demonstrates the actual difference in weighting:

it("should weight confidentiality higher in calculations", () => {
  // Test case where confidentiality's higher weight changes the result
  // Example: Availability=High(1), Integrity=High(1), Confidentiality=None(4)
  // Formula: (1 + 1 + 4*1.5) / 3.5 = 2.57 -> rounds to 3 ("High")
  const impact1 = calculateBusinessImpactLevel("High", "High", "None");
  
  // Compare to: Availability=None(4), Integrity=High(1), Confidentiality=High(1)
  // Formula: (4 + 1 + 1*1.5) / 3.5 = 1.86 -> rounds to 2 ("Medium")
  const impact2 = calculateBusinessImpactLevel("None", "High", "High");
  
  // Verify that confidentiality's weight makes impact1 worse than impact2
  expect(impact1).toBe("High");
  expect(impact2).toBe("Medium");
});

This test would actually prove that confidentiality has higher weight by showing different results.

Fixed in commit 10f0858. Improved the test with better examples that demonstrate confidentiality's higher weight. Now uses multiple test cases that produce different results, effectively proving the 1.5x weighting on confidentiality.

The JSDoc example comment at line 460 returns an imprecise result ("High" or "Critical") which doesn't provide concrete, verifiable information. Good documentation examples should show exact, calculable results.

Recommendation: Update the example to show the exact calculated result:

// Mixed levels with confidentiality weighted higher
// Formula: (1 + 2 + 4*1.5) / 3.5 = 2.57 → rounds to 3
calculateBusinessImpactLevel("High", "Moderate", "None") // Returns "High"

Including the calculation in comments helps developers understand the weighting algorithm and makes the documentation more educational.

Fixed in commit 10f0858. Improved the JSDoc example with detailed calculation formulas showing the exact computation: "(1 [High] + 2 [Moderate] + 4 [None] * 1.5) / 3.5 = 9 / 3.5 = 2.57 → rounds to 3 ('High')" for better educational value.

Potential array bounds issue: The roundedImpact value at line 483 could theoretically exceed the impactLevels array bounds (0-4). While the current formula with the given weights should keep values within 0-4, there's no explicit bounds checking before array access at line 493.

Recommendation: Add explicit bounds checking for defensive programming:

const roundedImpact = Math.round(weightedAverage);

// Ensure the index is within bounds
const clampedIndex = Math.max(0, Math.min(4, roundedImpact));
return impactLevels[clampedIndex] ?? "Critical";

This ensures the function never returns undefined and gracefully handles edge cases if the formula is modified in the future.

Fixed in commit 10f0858. Added explicit bounds checking using Math.max(0, Math.min(4, roundedImpact)) before array access. This ensures the function never returns undefined and gracefully handles edge cases if the formula is modified in the future.

Unused import CIAComponent.