Problem: The store AIP decision doesn't convey that it's a good opportunity for users to review and validate the METS

[ross-spencer]

Please describe the problem you'd like to be solved.

Giving users the opportunity to review the AIP package, including looking at and validating the METS file seems to be encoded in ways that Archivematica is taught and demonstrated. As a user, it would be great if this job were clearer to say that this is an important opportunity to do that before storing the METS.

Describe the solution you'd like to see implemented.

The decision point seems to be doing this:

• Are you happy with the structure of the METS? -> Yes: store the AIP, No: reject the AIP

Which might add a little more context.

Describe alternatives you've considered.

We could leave this as is, as it's a tried and true practice. There may also be better alternatives to the one I outlined above.

---

For Artefactual use:
Please make sure these steps are taken before moving this issue from Review to Verified in Waffle:

• All PRs related to this issue are properly linked 👍
• All PRs related to this issue have been merged 👍
• Test plan for this issue has been implemented and passed 👍
• Documentation regarding this issue has been written and it has been added to the release notes, if needed 👍

[ross-spencer]

Related to #655 -- should the PIM (Premis in METS) service be replaced in the near future, then this "enhancement" would not be necessary.