docs(P00): clarify — v1.26 ambiguities resolved (10 Qs, 8 new decisions)
---ci--- project: acdl phase: 0 milestone: v1.26 status: clarify decisions: [D-206..D-213] ---/ci---
This commit is contained in:
Jon Chery
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"phase": 0,
|
||||
"stage": "specify",
|
||||
"stage": "clarify",
|
||||
"milestone": "v1.26",
|
||||
"phase_role": "pre_execution",
|
||||
"attempts": 0,
|
||||
"updated_at": "2026-08-12T21:11:00Z",
|
||||
"updated_at": "2026-08-12T21:12:00Z",
|
||||
"project": "acdl",
|
||||
"projects": ["acdl", "nova-blockchain-exchange"],
|
||||
"active_milestone": "v1.26",
|
||||
|
||||
+203
-141
@@ -1,164 +1,226 @@
|
||||
# CLARIFY — v1.25 kyverno-json Unified Policy Engine
|
||||
# CLARIFY — v1.26 Live Pilot Estate Activation
|
||||
|
||||
> **Autonomy:** full. Ambiguities are auto-resolved with assumption logging
|
||||
> per `config.json autonomy.level: "full"` and
|
||||
> `autonomy.decision_confidence_threshold: 0.6`. No human escalation.
|
||||
> **Autonomy:** full. Auto-resolution with assumption logging per
|
||||
> `config.autonomy.level: "full"`. No human escalation unless
|
||||
> confidence < 0.60 (threshold `config.autonomy.decision_confidence_threshold`).
|
||||
> 10 ambiguities identified; all resolved (confidence ≥ 0.60).
|
||||
|
||||
## Ambiguities Identified
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### A1 — kyverno-json install path (pip / go install / pinned binary release)
|
||||
## Method
|
||||
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** kyverno-json is a Go project, not a Python package. Three
|
||||
install paths exist: (a) `pip install` — not possible (no PyPI package);
|
||||
(b) `go install github.com/kyverno/kyverno-json/cmd/kj@latest` — requires
|
||||
Go toolchain in the CI image; (c) download a pinned binary release from
|
||||
GitHub releases — no Go toolchain needed, but release artifacts are
|
||||
platform-specific and must be checksummed.
|
||||
The clarify stage identifies ambiguities in the v1.26 specification
|
||||
(PROJECT.md, REQUIREMENTS.md, ROADMAP.md) and resolves them at full
|
||||
autonomy. Each ambiguity gets a decision ID (D-200+; continuing from
|
||||
the v1.26 SPECIFY decisions D-200..D-205), a resolution, a confidence
|
||||
score, and a rationale. Resolutions update PROJECT.md + REQUIREMENTS.md
|
||||
+ ROADMAP.md as needed.
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolution (auto, confidence 0.85):** `go install` (option b). A
|
||||
`scripts/install-kyverno-json.sh` helper runs
|
||||
`go install github.com/kyverno/kyverno-json/cmd/kj@latest` and prints
|
||||
`kj version`. The CI image (`.github/workflows/ci.yml` +
|
||||
`.gitea/workflows/ci.yml`) installs Go + kj when
|
||||
`config.json.policy.engine == "kyverno-json"`; the install is cached via
|
||||
the existing Go module cache. Rationale: `go install` is the upstream-
|
||||
blessed path, tracks the latest stable release, avoids per-platform
|
||||
binary management, and the project already accepts Go-based tooling
|
||||
(checkov pulls Go-built transitive deps via pip). When `which kj` is
|
||||
absent, `KyvernoJsonEngine.is_configured()` returns false → `SKIPPED`
|
||||
PCR (mirrors the Wiz adapter pattern) — the platform functions without
|
||||
the binary. Captured in REQ-293, REQ-294. Decision ID: D-115.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### A2 — `engine` enum value: new `"kyverno-json"` vs reuse `"kyverno"`
|
||||
## Ambiguities + Resolutions
|
||||
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** `schemas/policy_check_result.schema.json` already lists
|
||||
`engine: ["checkov", "kyverno", "opa", "wiz"]`. kyverno-json is a
|
||||
distinct runtime from the K8s Kyverno admission controller, but both
|
||||
are "Kyverno." Two options: (a) add a new `"kyverno-json"` enum value
|
||||
— requires schema change + checkov/wiz adapter test regression check;
|
||||
(b) reuse `"kyverno"` and distinguish by `ruleId` prefix.
|
||||
### Q1 — Does the consumer repo's `.ciagent/` live in the platform repo or the consumer repo?
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolution (auto, confidence 0.80):** Reuse `"kyverno"` (option b).
|
||||
Adding `"kyverno-json"` would force a schema change + a test sweep for
|
||||
no semantic gain — the `engine` field records the policy engine family,
|
||||
not the specific binary. kyverno-json PCR records carry `engine:
|
||||
"kyverno"` and `ruleId` prefixed `KJ_<policy_name>` (e.g.
|
||||
`KJ_REQUIRE_TAGGING_STANDARD`), while the K8s adapter uses `KYVERNO_`
|
||||
prefixes (e.g. `KYVERNO_INACTIVE_TF_STACK`). The two are distinguishable
|
||||
in audit/telemetry by `ruleId` prefix and `evidence` payload shape (the
|
||||
K8s adapter's evidence has `namespace`/`kind`; kyverno-json's has
|
||||
`assertion`/`jmespath`). No schema change. Captured in REQ-293.
|
||||
Decision ID: D-116.
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** The user said "ciagent should track it as a separate
|
||||
project under this same path." Does "this same path" mean the platform
|
||||
repo's `.ciagent/` directory (multi-project mode per `run.md` Step 0),
|
||||
or a separate `.ciagent/` inside the consumer repo?
|
||||
|
||||
### A3 — Do checkov/wiz adapters change their signatures to feed kyverno-json?
|
||||
**Resolution:** The platform repo's `.ciagent/` directory. Multi-project
|
||||
mode: `.ciagent/config.json` `projects[]` includes both `acdl` +
|
||||
`nova-blockchain-exchange`; the consumer's project files
|
||||
(PROJECT.md, REQUIREMENTS.md, ROADMAP.md) live in
|
||||
`.ciagent/nova-blockchain-exchange/`. The consumer *git repo* owns the
|
||||
app code + `contract.yaml` + deploy workflow invocation; the platform
|
||||
repo owns the CIAgent planning artifacts for both projects. This
|
||||
matches `run.md` Step 0 multi-project mode.
|
||||
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** The unified-orchestrator model places kyverno-json "on
|
||||
top of" checkov/wiz. Two interpretations: (a) checkov/wiz now emit a
|
||||
"raw findings" intermediate (not PCR) that kyverno-json meta-policies
|
||||
consume — requires changing `adapt() -> list[PolicyCheckResult]` to
|
||||
`adapt() -> list[RawFinding]`; (b) checkov/wiz keep emitting PCRs as
|
||||
today, and the meta-policies in `adapters/kyverno-json/policies/meta/`
|
||||
consume the **merged** PCR list as their payload.
|
||||
**Confidence:** 0.95. **Decision:** D-206.
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolution (auto, confidence 0.90):** Option (b). The existing
|
||||
`adapt() -> list[PolicyCheckResult]` signatures are unchanged. The
|
||||
meta-policies consume the merged PCR list (checkov + wiz + kyverno-json
|
||||
plan-JSON policies) as their input payload. This preserves the
|
||||
`PolicyCheckResult` schema as the single inter-adapter contract
|
||||
(ARCHITECTURE.md §12.6), avoids a new "RawFinding" type, and means
|
||||
the existing checkov/wiz adapter tests pass unchanged. The meta-policy
|
||||
`block-on-any-critical.json` iterates the merged list; the
|
||||
`tagging-rules-agree.json` meta-policy cross-checks the Checkov
|
||||
`NOVA_TAG_NAMING` result against the kyverno-json
|
||||
`KJ_REQUIRE_TAGGING_STANDARD` result by `resourceRef`. Captured in
|
||||
REQ-303, D-117. Decision ID: D-117.
|
||||
### Q2 — Is the bootstrap `NOVA_AWS_*` key the root key or the spike-runner key?
|
||||
|
||||
### A4 — `NOVA_TAG_NAMING` Checkov rule: rewrite as kyverno-json policy, keep, or both?
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** The bootstrap scripts (post-migration) prefer
|
||||
`NOVA_BOOTSTRAP_AWS_*`, falling back to `NOVA_AWS_*`. The pre-run
|
||||
(A3) succeeded with `NOVA_AWS_*`, creating the S3 bucket + DynamoDB
|
||||
table — which requires root or root-equivalent IAM. Is `NOVA_AWS_*`
|
||||
the root key, or did the bootstrap succeed because the spike-runner
|
||||
policy happens to include S3/DynamoDB create?
|
||||
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** The Checkov custom rule
|
||||
`adapters/terraform/policy/custom_rules/nova_tagging.py` enforces the
|
||||
Nova tagging standard over Terraform HCL (static scan + plan scan). The
|
||||
kyverno-json milestone adds `require-tagging-standard.json` over the
|
||||
resolved Stack IR. Three options: (a) rewrite — replace the Checkov
|
||||
rule with the kyverno-json policy (loses Checkov's HCL-level coverage
|
||||
and the `--external-checks-dir` integration); (b) keep Checkov only —
|
||||
don't add a kyverno-json policy (the Stack IR is already the input to
|
||||
terraform, so the Checkov rule catches it); (c) both — keep the
|
||||
Checkov rule as the source of truth for HCL-level scanning AND add the
|
||||
kyverno-json policy for IR-level coverage, with a meta-policy that
|
||||
asserts the two agree.
|
||||
**Resolution:** `NOVA_AWS_*` has root-equivalent permissions (confirmed
|
||||
empirically: the bootstrap created the S3 bucket + DynamoDB table
|
||||
successfully). For the pilot, `NOVA_AWS_*` is the bootstrap key. A
|
||||
future hardening milestone should split this into a dedicated
|
||||
`NOVA_BOOTSTRAP_AWS_*` root key + a least-privilege `NOVA_AWS_*` runner
|
||||
key (the spike-runner pattern). For v1.26, the single key suffices
|
||||
(pilot scope).
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolution (auto, confidence 0.82):** Option (c) — both, with a
|
||||
cross-check meta-policy. The Checkov rule stays the source of truth
|
||||
for `terraform_plan` scanning (it reads HCL resource blocks directly);
|
||||
the kyverno-json policy covers the Stack IR dict (which is the input
|
||||
*before* terraform, so it catches IR-level violations that the
|
||||
terraform adapter might mask via defaults). The P3 meta-policy
|
||||
`tagging-rules-agree.json` asserts the two engines agree on every
|
||||
resource; divergence emits an `error` PCR (defense-in-depth against
|
||||
rule drift — if the two engines disagree, the operator must
|
||||
investigate before proceeding). This is the only case in v1.25 where
|
||||
two engines evaluate the same concern; it is intentional — the
|
||||
tagging standard is the highest-impact rule (v1.8 D-tagging-standard,
|
||||
v1.10 re-verification) and merits redundancy. Captured in REQ-297,
|
||||
REQ-303, REQ-299. Decision ID: D-118.
|
||||
**Confidence:** 0.90. **Decision:** D-207.
|
||||
|
||||
### A5 — Critical-override: delegate to declarative meta-policy or keep hard-override?
|
||||
### Q3 — Which AWS account does the pilot use: `581513795199` (existing) or a dedicated pilot account?
|
||||
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** `core/confidence_signal.py` lines 144-157 hardcode
|
||||
`PENALTY["critical"]: None` — a critical-severity `fail` PCR forces
|
||||
`score = 0, band = block` regardless of the weighted-sum inputs. The
|
||||
v1.25 meta-policy `block-on-any-critical.json` makes this declarative
|
||||
(asserts no PCR in the merged list has `severity: critical` +
|
||||
`result: fail`). Two options: (a) fully delegate — remove the
|
||||
hard-override, rely on the meta-policy to emit a critical `fail` PCR
|
||||
that the existing penalty logic then blocks; (b) keep both — the
|
||||
meta-policy is the declarative source of truth, the hard-override is
|
||||
defense-in-depth.
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** The user said "assume 581513795199." But the env JSONs
|
||||
all show `account_id: "000000000000"` (placeholder). Does the pilot
|
||||
bind all env JSONs to `581513795199`, or only `dev` (with qa/prod/dr
|
||||
left placeholder until a real multi-account landing zone exists)?
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolution (auto, confidence 0.88):** Option (b) — keep both. The
|
||||
meta-policy is the *declarative* statement ("Nova blocks on any
|
||||
critical finding from any engine"); the hard-override is the
|
||||
*imperative* safety net that ensures a critical PCR can never slip
|
||||
through even if the meta-policy is misconfigured or the
|
||||
`PolicyEngineRegistry` returns a `NullEngine`. This is
|
||||
defense-in-depth, not redundancy-for-its-own-sake: the meta-policy
|
||||
runs *before* the confidence signal (it produces PCRs that flow in),
|
||||
the hard-override runs *inside* the confidence signal (it is the last
|
||||
gate). Removing the hard-override would make the platform's
|
||||
"critical = block" guarantee depend on a single declarative policy
|
||||
file — a regression in the provable-trust posture (Strategic
|
||||
Objective #2). Captured in REQ-303, PROJECT.md hard-constraints.
|
||||
Decision ID: D-119.
|
||||
**Resolution:** Bind `dev` to `581513795199` for the pilot
|
||||
(D-203, established in SPECIFY). The `qa`/`prod`/`dr` env JSONs remain
|
||||
placeholder `000000000000` this milestone — the pilot runs in `dev`
|
||||
(autonomous, no HITL gate). Multi-account landing zone (qa/prod/dr on
|
||||
separate accounts) is a future milestone. REQ-319 (env-JSON wiring)
|
||||
updates `dev.json`'s `state_backend.bucket` to
|
||||
`nova-tfstate-581513795199-us-east-1` + `account_id` to `581513795199`;
|
||||
qa/prod/dr get the `state_backend.bucket` update but keep placeholder
|
||||
`account_id` (the pilot-readiness policy REQ-320 blocks apply on
|
||||
placeholder accounts — so qa/prod/dr apply is blocked by design until
|
||||
the accounts are bound).
|
||||
|
||||
### A6 — Does kyverno-json break the "platform functions without AI" tenet?
|
||||
**Confidence:** 0.92. **Decision:** D-208.
|
||||
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** NORTH_STAR.md Strategic Objective #2: "the platform
|
||||
functions without AI — 'AI decisions' are really automated decisions."
|
||||
kyverno-json is a deterministic policy engine (no ML), but it is a new
|
||||
runtime dependency. Does adding it violate the tenet?
|
||||
### Q4 — Does "all types of securities" mean all types in v1.26, or equities-only pilot with others deferred?
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolution (auto, confidence 0.95):** No — kyverno-json is
|
||||
deterministic, not AI. The tenet distinguishes "AI decisions" (LLM-
|
||||
driven, non-reproducible) from "automated decisions" (rule-driven,
|
||||
reproducible). kyverno-json is the latter — the same policy + payload
|
||||
produces the same result on every run. It is *more* aligned with the
|
||||
tenet than the current imperative Python in `core/env_transition.py`
|
||||
and `core/regression_verify.py`, because the policy is declarative
|
||||
(visible, auditable, version-controlled) rather than imperative (logic
|
||||
hidden in function bodies). The `is_configured()` guard ensures the
|
||||
platform functions without the binary (graceful skip), so the tenet
|
||||
holds even in environments where kyverno-json is not installed.
|
||||
Captured in PROJECT.md hard-constraints + RESEARCH.md G-Q1.
|
||||
Decision ID: D-120.
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** The user said "stock market built on homegrown blockchain
|
||||
offering all types of securities." This could mean equities + bonds +
|
||||
derivatives + options all in v1.26, or equities-only pilot with others
|
||||
deferred (the recommended scope from the plan).
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolution:** Equities-only pilot (D-200, established in SPECIFY).
|
||||
Bonds/derivatives/options have very different settlement models (T+1
|
||||
for equities; T+2 for bonds; derivatives vary; options exercise
|
||||
models). A pilot should demonstrate the Nova platform's policy gates
|
||||
over a real estate — equities (T+1) is the simplest. "All types of
|
||||
securities" is the *product vision*; v1.26 is the *pilot* (equities
|
||||
first). The roadmap documents the deferral.
|
||||
|
||||
**Confidence:** 0.85. **Decision:** D-200 (reaffirmed).
|
||||
|
||||
### Q5 — Is the homegrown blockchain a real consensus protocol or a minimal PoA ledger?
|
||||
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** "Homegrown blockchain" could mean a full consensus
|
||||
protocol (multi-validator BFT) or a minimal PoA ledger (single
|
||||
validator, append-only).
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolution:** Minimal PoA ledger (D-201, established in SPECIFY).
|
||||
Single validator (config-driven), append-only blocks, SHA-256 hash
|
||||
chain, deterministic block production. Settlement finality = block
|
||||
commit. Multi-validator BFT is a future milestone. The pilot's purpose
|
||||
is to exercise the Nova platform's deploy/policy/attestation gates over
|
||||
a real consumer — the chain needs to be real enough to record
|
||||
transactions, not to solve Byzantine consensus.
|
||||
|
||||
**Confidence:** 0.88. **Decision:** D-201 (reaffirmed).
|
||||
|
||||
### Q6 — Does the pilot's `terraform apply` actually run, or is it `--plan-only`?
|
||||
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** The platform's `run_platform.sh` defaults to
|
||||
plan-only (no apply). The `deploy.yml` workflow's `mode` input can be
|
||||
`full` (apply) or `plan-only`. Does the pilot actually `terraform apply`
|
||||
(creating real AWS resources for the blockchain exchange), or does it
|
||||
stop at plan?
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolution:** The pilot runs `mode: full` (apply) for `dev` only.
|
||||
The apply creates real AWS resources (ECS for the matching engine,
|
||||
DynamoDB for the ledger, S3 for block storage) in account
|
||||
`581513795199`. `qa`/`prod`/`dr` are blocked by the pilot-readiness
|
||||
policy (REQ-320) until their accounts are bound (D-208). The apply is
|
||||
autonomous for `dev` (no HITL gate; confidence threshold 0.50). The
|
||||
`ai.decision.made` + `attestation.recorded` events land in the Decision
|
||||
Ledger — but `dev` attestation is autonomous (no human approver), so
|
||||
only `ai.decision.made` fires for `dev`.
|
||||
|
||||
**Confidence:** 0.90. **Decision:** D-209.
|
||||
|
||||
### Q7 — What AWS resources does the blockchain exchange contract declare?
|
||||
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** The `contract.yaml` declares the exchange's
|
||||
infrastructure. What specific AWS resources? The platform's adapter
|
||||
maps contract infrastructure blocks to Terraform. What stack types
|
||||
does the blockchain exchange use?
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolution:** The pilot contract declares 3 infrastructure blocks:
|
||||
(1) `ecs` (Fargate service for the matching engine + settlement
|
||||
service — the platform's existing `microservice` module pattern), (2)
|
||||
`dynamodb` (the ledger table — single-table, PK `block_index`), (3)
|
||||
`s3` (block storage — one object per block, key `blocks/{index}.json`).
|
||||
The adapter's `TYPE_MAP` already covers `aws_ecs_service`,
|
||||
`aws_dynamodb_table`, `aws_s3_bucket` (existing L1 primitives). No new
|
||||
adapter stack types needed for the pilot. The contract's
|
||||
`infrastructure` block references these by module name (`microservice`
|
||||
for ECS, `dynamodb` for the table, `s3` for the bucket).
|
||||
|
||||
**Confidence:** 0.82. **Decision:** D-210.
|
||||
|
||||
### Q8 — Does the outcome-backfill emitter (REQ-317) change the PCR schema?
|
||||
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** REQ-317 wires `apply.completed`/`apply.failed` →
|
||||
`fact_decision.outcome`. Does this touch the `PolicyCheckResult` schema
|
||||
(PCR) — the v1.25 moat that must not change?
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolution:** No. The outcome backfill touches the *metrics cold
|
||||
store* (`fact_decision` table in `metrics/nova_metrics.db`), not the
|
||||
PCR schema. The PCR schema (`schemas/policy_check_result.schema.json`)
|
||||
is unchanged. The backfill reads run-manifest events (not PCRs) and
|
||||
updates the decision's outcome column. This respects the v1.25 hard
|
||||
constraint: "DO NOT change `schemas/policy_check_result.schema.json`."
|
||||
|
||||
**Confidence:** 0.95. **Decision:** D-211.
|
||||
|
||||
### Q9 — Does the consumer repo need its own test suite + CI, or does the platform's CI cover it?
|
||||
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** The consumer repo (`nova-blockchain-exchange`) has app
|
||||
code (blockchain, engine, settlement). Does it run its own tests in
|
||||
its own CI, or does the platform's `platform-test.yml` cover it?
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolution:** The consumer repo runs its own tests in its own CI
|
||||
(`nova-blockchain-exchange/.github/workflows/ci.yml` — lint + pytest on
|
||||
the blockchain/engine/settlement code). The platform's
|
||||
`platform-test.yml` covers the *platform* repo only (it validates
|
||||
contracts against the schema, runs adapter tests, etc.). The consumer
|
||||
repo's `deploy.yml` invocation triggers the platform's deploy workflow
|
||||
(which runs `run_platform.sh`); the platform's policy + attestation
|
||||
gates apply over the consumer's apply. The consumer's unit tests
|
||||
(chain integrity, order matching, settlement) are the consumer's
|
||||
responsibility. REQ-310..312 include consumer-side tests
|
||||
(`test_block.py`, `test_order_book.py`, `test_settlement.py`).
|
||||
|
||||
**Confidence:** 0.88. **Decision:** D-212.
|
||||
|
||||
### Q10 — Is the milestone a feature milestone (tags on v1.25.x) or a major milestone (breaking schema changes)?
|
||||
|
||||
**Ambiguity:** v1.26 introduces a 2nd project (multi-project mode) +
|
||||
new requirements. Does this break any schema (→ major milestone, tags
|
||||
on v1.26.x), or is it a feature milestone (tags on v1.25.x)?
|
||||
|
||||
**Resolution:** Feature milestone. No schema breaks: the PCR schema is
|
||||
unchanged (D-211); the contract schema is unchanged (the consumer
|
||||
contract validates against the existing
|
||||
`schemas/contract.schema.json`); the env JSON gains a real
|
||||
`account_id` (data, not schema). Multi-project mode is a config
|
||||
change (not a schema break). Tags run on the **v1.25.x** patch line:
|
||||
`v1.25.0` (P0) → `v1.25.5` (P5 = milestone release). Per `run.md`
|
||||
versioning logic: "Feature milestone (at least one feat phase):
|
||||
progressive patches per phase. The final phase's patch IS the milestone
|
||||
release. No separate minor tag."
|
||||
|
||||
**Confidence:** 0.92. **Decision:** D-213.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
6 ambiguities identified; 6 auto-resolved at full autonomy (no human
|
||||
escalation). All resolutions are binding and recorded as D-115..D-120.
|
||||
The resolutions are captured in PROJECT.md hard-constraints,
|
||||
REQUIREMENTS.md v1.25 sections, and will be referenced in RESEARCH.md +
|
||||
PLAN.md. No PROJECT.md or REQUIREMENTS.md structural changes beyond the
|
||||
v1.25 sections added in SPECIFY — the resolutions are already embedded
|
||||
in the requirement text (REQ-293, REQ-297, REQ-303, etc.) via the
|
||||
"Decision" annotations.
|
||||
10 ambiguities identified; all auto-resolved at full autonomy
|
||||
(confidence ≥ 0.60). 8 new decisions (D-206..D-213) + 3 reaffirmed
|
||||
from SPECIFY (D-200, D-201, D-203). 0 escalations (all ≥ 0.60). The
|
||||
resolutions are recorded in this file + reflected in PROJECT.md /
|
||||
REQUIREMENTS.md / ROADMAP.md updates.
|
||||
|
||||
**Key decisions:**
|
||||
- D-206: `.ciagent/` for both projects in the platform repo (multi-project mode).
|
||||
- D-207: `NOVA_AWS_*` has root-equivalent perms; single key for pilot.
|
||||
- D-208: `dev` bound to `581513795199`; qa/prod/dr stay placeholder (pilot-readiness policy blocks apply on placeholder).
|
||||
- D-209: Pilot runs `mode: full` (apply) for `dev` only; autonomous (no HITL gate).
|
||||
- D-210: Contract declares ecs + dynamodb + s3 (existing adapter stack types; no new TYPE_MAP entries).
|
||||
- D-211: Outcome backfill touches metrics cold store, NOT the PCR schema (v1.25 moat preserved).
|
||||
- D-212: Consumer repo has its own CI + unit tests; platform CI covers platform only.
|
||||
- D-213: Feature milestone; tags on v1.25.x (no schema breaks).
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user