# GRILL — v1.27 PO State Catalog & Ciagent Compression

> Adversarial review of the v1.27 SPECIFY + CLARIFY + RESEARCH + PLAN.
> The grill red-teams the proposal across feasibility, scope, and the
> compression-loss claims. Each challenge gets a binding verdict
> (PROCEED / REVISE / ESCALATE). Autonomy: full.

## Verdict: PROCEED (0.88) — 0 escalations, 1 revision

The milestone is feasible, scoped, and the compression is lossless. One
binding revision (G-Q2) refines the archive list; already captured in
PLAN. No work is blocked.

---

## Challenges

### G-Q1 — Is archiving AUTONOMY_THESIS.md + COST.md a context loss?

**Challenge:** `AUTONOMY_THESIS.md` is the "autonomy in operations;
human at stage gates" thesis — the defensibility brief. `COST.md` is
the only AWS cost record. Archiving both moves them out of active
context. Does this lose load-bearing content?

**Verdict:** PROCEED (confidence 0.90).
- `AUTONOMY_THESIS.md` (65 lines, "Last refined: v1.21") is fully
  folded into `NORTH_STAR.md` Vision (lines 17–22: "infrastructure
  operations become visible... human attestation remains required at
  stage gates") + Anti-Goals #2 ("Not a system that removes humans from
  accountability"). The thesis is the source; NORTH_STAR is the
  authoritative durable copy. Archive preserves the v1.21 refinement;
  active context reads NORTH_STAR.
- `COST.md` (106 lines, dated 2026-07-29, "v1.0 → v1.14") predates the
  v1.26 live pilot. The v1.26 live apply (ECS + ALB + DynamoDB + S3)
  incurred real costs this snapshot doesn't reflect. Archiving it is
  honest — a stale cost record misleads. STATE.md Domain 7 notes cost
  tracking as a capability (pre-apply Infracost grounded; actual-spend
  CUR deferred D-096). A future cost milestone writes a fresh report.
  No revision needed.

### G-Q2 — Does the archive list include the v1.27 P0 pre-execution files by mistake?

**Challenge:** D-219 (user-confirmed) says "archive all 4 pre-execution
artifacts" (CLARIFY/GRILL/IDEATE/RESEARCH). But P0 already overwrote
them with v1.27 content. Archiving the v1.27 versions at v1.27 P1 would
lose the v1.27 pre-execution narrative (the decisions D-214..D-225, the
research inventory, this grill). Is the archive list wrong?

**Verdict:** REVISE (confidence 0.92). This is a real ambiguity in the
plan. The user's D-219 decision was made *before* P0 overwrote the
files; the intent was to archive the *v1.26* pre-execution record. The
v1.26-era content is preserved in git history (the pre-P0 commits) —
the archive directory is not the only preservation layer. PLAN Task 2.1
already self-corrected: the final archive list is **7 platform files +
1 consumer file = 8 files**, excluding the 4 pre-execution files. The 4
v1.27 P0 versions stay active through v1.27; they archive at v1.28 P1
if v1.28 happens. The archive README notes the v1.26 pre-execution
record is in git history. No further revision needed — the plan self-
corrected.

### G-Q3 — Is the STATE.md backfill accurate enough to be the PO's source of truth?

**Challenge:** STATE.md has 36 capability rows across 10 domains,
backfilled from 8 sources. The PO will read this before writing new
REQs. If a row is inaccurate (wrong shipped tag, wrong file path,
wrong controlling REQ), the PO could re-spec an existing capability or
cite a stale invariant. Is the backfill accurate?

**Verdict:** PROCEED (confidence 0.85). The backfill sources are
authoritative: `core/regression_verify.py` (the machine CAP-NNN
registry), `modules/registry.json` (the live module catalog),
`REQUIREMENTS.md` traceability (the REQ→phase→status record),
`CHECKPOINT.json` (shipped tags), `git log` (file paths). The
citations are direct (each row cites the controlling REQ + decision
ID). The 11 invariants are distilled from PROJECT.md load-bearing
decisions D-034..D-072 + W1..BA + Q1.3. The accuracy risk is
mitigated by P1 Wave 1 (verify STATE.md against sources before
archive). No revision needed — the verification step is in the plan.

### G-Q4 — Does the NFR purity gate (zero `feat:` commits) hold for v1.27?

**Challenge:** v1.27 authors STATE.md (a new file). Is authoring a new
catalog file a `feat:` (feature) that breaks the NFR purity gate?

**Verdict:** PROCEED (confidence 0.92). D-220 (CLARIFY) resolved this:
STATE.md is documentation (a catalog of *existing* capabilities), not a
new platform capability. The archive moves are `chore:` (file
relocation, lossless). No code, no schema, no platform behavior
change. The NFR purity gate (zero `feat:` commits) holds. All v1.27
commits use `docs(P0N):` or `chore(P01):` prefixes. No revision
needed.

### G-Q5 — Does fixing PROJECT.md phase-status in P2 create a P0/P1 audit inconsistency?

**Challenge:** The PROJECT.md phase-status block shows P3/P4/P5 as
"pending" (the bug flagged in the prior conversation). P0 + P1 ship
with the bug still present (the fix is P2). Does the P0/P1 audit see
the inconsistency?

**Verdict:** PROCEED (confidence 0.86). The bug is pre-existing
(it predates v1.27; it was the trigger for the prior conversation).
P0/P1 audits check the *v1.27* commits against the `.ciagent/` state,
not the pre-existing PROJECT.md drift. The P2 fix is the correction;
the P3 audit verifies the fix landed. The intermediate state (P0/P1
with the bug present) is honest — the bug is documented in the v1.27
PLAN + the prior conversation, and the fix is scheduled. No revision
needed — the phasing is intentional (D-225: P1 additive, P2
correction).

### G-Q6 — Is the milestone scoped too small (3 phases, 8 archive moves)?

**Challenge:** v1.27 is a small milestone (3 phases, ~15 file
operations, no code). Is it worth a milestone, or should it be a
patch on v1.26?

**Verdict:** PROCEED (confidence 0.88). v1.27 is not a patch on v1.26
— v1.26 is shipped (`v1.25.5`, merged to main, milestone complete).
The work is a new milestone by definition. The size is appropriate:
STATE.md is a durable PO-facing artifact (loaded every ci-run going
forward); the compression reduces active context by ~26%; the
ship-discipline wiring affects every future milestone ship. Small but
high-leverage. No revision needed.

---

## Summary

6 challenges; 0 escalations; 1 binding revision (G-Q2, already
captured in PLAN Task 2.1). Overall verdict: PROCEED (confidence
0.88).

**Binding revisions:**
- **G-Q2:** Archive list refined to 7 platform + 1 consumer = 8 files.
  The 4 pre-execution files (CLARIFY/GRILL/IDEATE/RESEARCH) stay active
  through v1.27 (they hold the v1.27 P0 content); the v1.26-era content
  is in git history. Already in PLAN.

**No work is blocked.** The milestone is feasible, scoped, the
compression is lossless (archive + git history), the STATE.md backfill
is source-grounded with a verification step, the NFR purity holds, and
the phasing (P1 additive, P2 correction, P3 ship) is sound.