continuous-intelligence/acdl
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 128 Wiki Activity

docs(grill): v1.17 red-team — 12 BIND, 2 ESCALATE, REDUCE-SCOPE verdict

Browse Source 
NORTH_STAR alignment (Axis 1):
- G-Q1 BIND: AI-Agent Intent Share is an orphan target — NORTH_STAR:128
  claims a placeholder view that PLAN P3 does not build (8 views listed,
  none for it). No REQ-185..213 backs it. Violates "no fabrication."
- G-Q4 BIND: slide 7 cites D-122 but never tells the audience the "AI"
  is a confidence-gated policy engine, not an LLM. Honesty buried in a
  linked doc.
- G-Q5 BIND: derived metrics (FTE, ROI) computed on 0 production runs
  shown on slide 12 without the zero-denominator caveat.
- G-Q6 BIND: NORTH_STAR:111 ("committed, not aspirational") contradicts
  PO's "simply to target" + 0 consumers (PROJECT.md:495). 3 "grounded"
  targets have non-existent scope (production estates). Reclassify to
  partial (Cloud Spend precedent). NORTH_STAR-CHANGE trailer required.

Deck story & arc (Axis 2):
- G-Q8 BIND(minor): slide 1 preview is a table of contents, not a hook.
- G-Q9 BIND: 4 of 17 benefit callouts are filler (slides 1, 4, 12, 15).
- G-Q10 BIND(minor): slide 12 crams 6 metrics — split into two.
- G-Q11 BIND: slide 13 (deferred) invites the "can't prove ops healthy"
  objection — add preempt.

Deck per-slide rigor (Axis 3):
- G-Q13 BIND: 3 of 13 transitions hand-waved (esp. Act 3→4 boundary 8→9).
- G-Q14 BIND: slide 9 (Telemetry Architecture) is the audience-loss slide.
- G-Q15 BIND(minor): slide 12 derived metrics lack formula + N=0 caveat.
- G-Q16 BIND: slide 15 ask is insider language, not a business decision.

PASS: G-Q2 (anti-goals, conditional on slide 3), G-Q3 (attestation
consistency — excellent), G-Q7 (arc order — marginal), G-Q12 (slide
openings — formulaic but substantive).

ESCALATE: E-003 (reclassify 3 targets to partial vs redefine "grounded"),
E-004 (AI-Agent Intent Share: 12–18mo target vs Future Horizons).

Verdict: REDUCE SCOPE / BINDING FIXES REQUIRED. 12 fixes, no re-architect;
1–2 phases of rework in P0 (NORTH_STAR) + P5 (deck). Critical path
unchanged. Confidence 0.80.

---ci---
status: grill
verdict: reduce-scope
binding_decisions:
  - G-Q1: BIND (0.90) — add 9th placeholder view OR move AI-Agent Intent
    Share to Future Horizons; correct NORTH_STAR:128
  - G-Q4: BIND (0.85) — add D-122 honesty sentence to slide 7 Delivers
  - G-Q5: BIND (0.82) — annotate derived metrics on slide 12 with
    zero-run caveat
  - G-Q6: BIND (0.80) — rewrite NORTH_STAR:111; reclassify 3 targets to
    partial; regroup deck slide 5; NORTH_STAR-CHANGE trailer
  - G-Q8: BIND (0.70) — add stake line with real number to slide 1
  - G-Q9: BIND (0.78) — rewrite 4 filler closes (slides 1,4,12,15)
  - G-Q10: BIND (0.68) — split slide 12 into two; deck -> 18 slides
  - G-Q11: BIND (0.75) — add preempt to slide 13
  - G-Q13: BIND (0.85) — rewrite 3 hand-waved transitions (8->9 critical)
  - G-Q14: BIND (0.78) — compress slide 9 or reframe its Benefit to trust
  - G-Q15: BIND (0.80) — show ROI formula + N=0 caveat on slide 12
  - G-Q16: BIND (0.82) — reframe slide 15 ask as business decision
escalations:
  - E-003: reclassify 3 "grounded" targets to partial vs redefine
    "grounded" — PO decision on NORTH_STAR target framing (<0.60)
  - E-004: AI-Agent Intent Share as 12–18mo target vs Future Horizons —
    PO strategic-scope decision (<0.60)
This commit is contained in:
Jon Chery
2026-08-04 19:37:24 +00:00
parent abbf8b69fb
commit 7535c8ceb0
1 changed files with 259 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
.ciagent/GRILL.md
+259
View File
@@ -636,3 +636,262 @@ re-provision the bucket.
YES, once G-111's criterion restatement + gate update are incorporated
(into P9's must-haves). G-112/G-113 are phase-entry clarifications for
P9/P12/P13. E-002 is deferred to P21. Confidence 0.85.
---
# GRILL — v1.17 "Strategic Direction, Leadership Metrics & Unified Story" (2026-08-04)
> **Griller:** CIAgent (red-team mode). **Milestone:** v1.17. **Axes:** 3
> (NORTH_STAR alignment, Deck story & arc, Deck per-slide rigor) per PO
> direction. **Stance:** adversarial — presumed over-scoped / infeasible /
> storytelling-weak until evidence forced otherwise.
## Evidence base
- `NORTH_STAR.md` (183 lines, draft), `PLAN.md` (1,114 lines, deck rebuild
plan incl. slide-by-slide), `REQUIREMENTS.md` v1.17 (REQ-185..213),
`RESEARCH.md` v1.17 (signal inventory, scorecard, deferred-decision
ledger, deck research).
- Codebase cross-checks: `REGRESSION_REPORT.json` = **18 Verified + 4
Skipped** (NOT "22/22 Verified" — the new deck plan correctly says
18V+4S; the *existing* decks still claim 22/22). `PROJECT.md:495` =
**0 consumer adoption**. `docs/NO_HUMANS_THESIS.md`, `docs/METRICS.md`,
`metrics/` do not yet exist (P4/P5 deliverables — expected).
- Decisions locked (D-120..D-132) — not re-litigated.
## The central contradiction
**NORTH_STAR.md:111** states: *"Targets are committed, not aspirational."*
**PO's G-Q6 answer:** *"the goal is simply to target a high touchless
resolution rate, not to say we have reached those targets given there are
0 consumers."*
These two statements are in direct conflict. "Committed, not aspirational"
+ "simply to target" = the document is lying about its own epistemic
status. This is the v1.10 decay root cause (PRE_MORTEM FM-3: decks
outrunning verified reality) repeating itself in the document meant to
prevent it.
## Axis 1 — NORTH_STAR alignment
### G-Q1 — Target with no backing REQ / placeholder
**Finding:** AI-Agent Intent Share (≥40%) is a committed 12–18mo target
(NORTH_STAR:128) with "placeholder view" claimed, but it is NOT among the
8 placeholder views in PLAN P3 (lines 309–315), and no REQ-185..213 builds
an emitter or placeholder for it. RESEARCH §3 marks it "future" with no
controlling decision ID (unlike every other deferred metric). NORTH_STAR:128
falsely claims a placeholder view exists → violates the "no fabrication"
hard constraint.
**Verdict: BIND.** Add a 9th placeholder view OR move the target to a
"Future Horizons" section; correct NORTH_STAR:128. **Confidence: 0.90.**
### G-Q2 — Anti-goal pursuit
**Finding:** No REQ builds an anti-goal. Deck title "No-Humans Infrastructure
Platform" is one weak slide away from violating anti-goal #3 (not removing
humans from accountability) — mitigation is entirely in slide 3's execution.
**Verdict: PASS (conditional on slide 3 landing the attestation model).**
**Confidence: 0.75.**
### G-Q3 — Attestation clarification consistency
**Finding:** The attestation clarification is the most consistently
propagated concept in the plan — NORTH_STAR (3 places), REQUIREMENTS
(3 REQs), deck (3 slides). Well done.
**Verdict: PASS.** **Confidence: 0.92.**
### G-Q4 — "AI decision" framing (D-122 honesty)
**Finding:** D-122 (confidence_signal + HITL gate, NOT an LLM) is cited on
slide 7 and required in NO_HUMANS_THESIS.md (REQ-213). BUT slide 7's
*Delivers* says "every AI decision captured" without ever telling the
audience what the "AI" is. The honesty is buried in a linked doc + a
decision ID the audience has never heard.
**Verdict: BIND.** Add one sentence to slide 7 *Delivers*: "Nova's 'AI
decision' is the confidence-gated policy engine, not an LLM planner
(D-122)." **Confidence: 0.85.**
### G-Q5 — Secretly ungrounded metrics
**Finding:** The 8 deferred placeholder views cover their list. BUT (a)
AI-Agent Intent Share's placeholder is falsely claimed (G-Q1), and (b)
derived metrics (FTE Hours Saved, Platform ROI) are computed on zero
production runs yet shown on slide 12 without the zero-denominator caveat.
A "derived" metric from zero runs is technically not fabricated but is
misleading.
**Verdict: BIND.** (1) Resolve G-Q1; (2) slide 12 must annotate derived
metrics with "(computed on N internal runs; production-denominator activates
post-pilot)." **Confidence: 0.82.**
### G-Q6 — 12–18mo target feasibility (0 consumers)
**Finding:** PO's answer ("simply to target") conflicts with NORTH_STAR:111
("committed, not aspirational"). 3 "grounded (after P1)" targets (Touchless
Resolution, Human Escalation, AI Decision Accuracy) have scope "across
production estates" — but PROJECT.md:495 = 0 consumer adoption. The metric
IS computable on internal dev runs, but the target scope doesn't exist.
Marking "grounded" while the scope is absent is the overclaim the "no
fabrication" constraint exists to prevent.
**Verdict: BIND.** (1) Rewrite NORTH_STAR:111 → "Targets are committed
destinations; the grounding column records whether each is measurable this
milestone." (2) Reclassify the 3 targets to `partial — measurement pipeline
grounded on internal runs; production-estate scope activates post-pilot`
(the Cloud Spend Reduction precedent at NORTH_STAR:123). (3) Deck slide 5
regroup as "Measurable today (internal runs)" vs "Activates post-pilot
(production estates)." Requires NORTH_STAR-CHANGE commit trailer (REQ-204).
**Confidence: 0.80.**
## Axis 2 — Deck plan: story & arc
### G-Q7 — Arc order (Problem→Vision→How→Proof→Roadmap vs Proof-first)
**Finding:** Current arc puts Proof at Act 4 (slides 10–13) — 40% of the
deck before a number. For a leadership audience that has seen 10+ milestone
decks, this risks losing the room by slide 4. BUT the "no-humans" thesis
is contentious; jumping to proof without the attestation model invites the
"removing humans from accountability" objection. The Vision act makes the
Proof credible.
**Verdict: PASS (marginal).** Defensible IF the Problem act is tight and
slide 3 front-loads the attestation clarification. **Confidence: 0.62.**
### G-Q8 — x3 structure at deck level
**Finding:** Slide 1's 5-act preview is orienting (a table of contents),
not too much meta-structure. BUT it's also not a hook — it gives structure,
not stakes. A C-suite audience decides in the first 30 seconds.
**Verdict: BIND (minor).** Add one stake-establishing line to slide 1
*Delivers* with a real number (18 verified, 0 consumers, honest deferral
list). **Confidence: 0.70.**
### G-Q9 — Per-slide benefit callouts (substantive vs filler)
**Finding:** 4 of 17 closes are filler (slides 1, 4, 12, 15); 2 borderline
(8, A1). Worst offender: slide 12 (ROI) restates the *objective* ("ROI is
quantifiable") rather than giving the *number* or the *honest caveat*.
**Verdict: BIND.** Rewrite 4 filler closes. Slide 12's close must be:
"Benefit: you now know the ROI formula — (labor + cloud + avoided downtime)
÷ platform cost — and that it computes on internal runs today, with
production-denominator activating post-pilot." **Confidence: 0.78.**
### G-Q10 — Deck length (17 slides)
**Finding:** 17 is at the upper bound but justifiable for 5 acts. The risk
is density, not length: slide 12 crams 6 metrics (Touchless, Human
Escalation, MTTR, Cost, FTE, ROI) into one slide — a wall of bullets.
**Verdict: BIND (minor).** Split slide 12 into "Zero-Touch Efficiency"
(Touchless, Human Escalation, MTTR) + "Cost & ROI" (Cost, FTE, ROI). Deck
→ 18 slides, each earning its place. **Confidence: 0.68.**
### G-Q11 — "What's Deferred" slide (13)
**Finding:** The honesty strengthens the grounded claims BUT surfaces the
gap: Nova claims "no-humans in operations" while deferring the metrics
that would prove operations are healthy without humans (Live Infra Health,
SLA, Drift Auto-Reversal). A skeptical viewer notes the contradiction.
**Verdict: BIND.** Add preempt to slide 13: "These deferrals are about
*measurement infrastructure*, not about whether the platform runs without
humans — the platform runs autonomously today on internal runs; what's
deferred is the production-estate dashboard that would prove it at scale."
**Confidence: 0.75.**
## Axis 3 — Deck plan: per-slide rigor
### G-Q12 — Slide opening lines
**Finding:** The "This slide shows X" formula is orienting, not patronizing,
because each includes a stake-bearing clause. Consistent without being empty.
**Verdict: PASS.** **Confidence: 0.80.**
### G-Q13 — Transitions (written vs hand-waved)
**Finding:** ~10 of 13 transitions are written (specific reference to prior
close). 3 are hand-waved (slides 8→9, 11→12, 13→14). Worst: the Act 3→4
boundary (slide 8→9, How→Proof) — the most important transition in the deck
— is the weakest.
**Verdict: BIND.** Rewrite the 3 hand-waved transitions. The 8→9 Act
boundary must carry weight: "Having seen the gate model — autonomy in
operations, human in accountability — here is how Nova instruments itself
to prove that model at scale." **Confidence: 0.85.**
### G-Q14 — Weakest slide (audience-loss point)
**Finding:** Slide 9 (Telemetry Architecture) is the audience-loss slide.
It's the 4th consecutive architecture slide (6,7,8,9), the most abstract
(CloudEvents, SQLite, PowerBI), its Benefit is about data plumbing not
business value, and it sits between the attestation matrix (slide 8,
emotionally resonant) and the Proof act (slide 10, the numbers) — between
the two things the audience came for.
**Verdict: BIND.** Compress slide 9 into slide 10 OR reframe its Benefit
from data plumbing to trust: "Benefit: you now know the proof you're about
to see isn't fabricated — every number traces to a file you can audit."
**Confidence: 0.78.**
### G-Q15 — Proof act citation specificity
**Finding:** 5 of 6 Proof citations are specific (file paths + real numbers).
Gap: slide 12's derived metrics (FTE, ROI) cite "derived" without showing
the formula or the input count.
**Verdict: BIND (minor).** Show the ROI formula inline on slide 12 + the
N=0 production-runs caveat. **Confidence: 0.80.**
### G-Q16 — Closing slide (15) — does the ask land?
**Finding:** THE ask is present but framed as insider language ("fund the
hot-path activation (post-D-096) + the tamper-evident ledger build-out
(D-083 lift)"). A leadership audience doesn't know what "hot-path
activation" means. The ask is a technical request, not a business decision
a leader can make in the room.
**Verdict: BIND.** Reframe slide 15's ask as a business decision: "The
ask: (1) approve a pilot estate to activate production-estate metrics
(unblocks D-096), and (2) approve the tamper-evident ledger build-out
(lifts D-083) — turning grounded claims into complete proof." Make it a
yes/no a leader can give. **Confidence: 0.82.**
## Binding decisions (must resolve before SHIP)
| G-ID | Axis | Verdict | What must change | Conf |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G-Q1 | 1 | BIND | Add 9th placeholder view for AI-Agent Intent Share OR move to "Future Horizons"; correct NORTH_STAR:128 | 0.90 |
| G-Q4 | 1 | BIND | Add D-122 honesty sentence to slide 7 *Delivers* | 0.85 |
| G-Q5 | 1 | BIND | Annotate derived metrics on slide 12 with zero-run caveat | 0.82 |
| G-Q6 | 1 | BIND | Rewrite NORTH_STAR:111; reclassify 3 targets to `partial`; regroup deck slide 5. NORTH_STAR-CHANGE trailer required | 0.80 |
| G-Q8 | 2 | BIND (minor) | Add stake line with real number to slide 1 *Delivers* | 0.70 |
| G-Q9 | 2 | BIND | Rewrite 4 filler closes (slides 1, 4, 12, 15); slide 12 must give ROI formula + caveat | 0.78 |
| G-Q10 | 2 | BIND (minor) | Split slide 12 into two (Efficiency + Cost/ROI); deck → 18 slides | 0.68 |
| G-Q11 | 2 | BIND | Add preempt to slide 13 (deferrals are measurement infra, not whether platform runs without humans) | 0.75 |
| G-Q13 | 3 | BIND | Rewrite 3 hand-waved transitions (esp. Act 3→4 boundary 8→9) | 0.85 |
| G-Q14 | 3 | BIND | Compress slide 9 into slide 10 OR reframe its Benefit to trust | 0.78 |
| G-Q15 | 3 | BIND (minor) | Show ROI formula inline + N=0 caveat on slide 12 | 0.80 |
| G-Q16 | 3 | BIND | Reframe slide 15 ask as a business decision (pilot estate + ledger build-out) | 0.82 |
**PASS (no change):** G-Q2 (anti-goals, conditional on slide 3), G-Q3
(attestation consistency — excellent), G-Q7 (arc order — marginal),
G-Q12 (slide openings — formulaic but substantive).
## Escalations (only the PO can decide)
| E-ID | Question | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| E-003 | Should the 3 "grounded (after P1)" targets with "production estates" scope be reclassified to `partial` (Cloud Spend precedent), or should "grounded" be redefined to mean "measurement pipeline grounded"? Changes a committed NORTH_STAR target's grounding label; requires NORTH_STAR-CHANGE trailer (REQ-204). | <0.60 |
| E-004 | Should AI-Agent Intent Share (≥40%) remain a "12–18mo Target" with no backing REQ/placeholder, or move to a "Future Horizons" section? Strategic-scope question (is agentic consumption a 12–18mo commitment or a longer horizon?). | <0.60 |
## Overall verdict
**🟡 REDUCE SCOPE / BINDING FIXES REQUIRED — not ready to ship as-is.**
The plan is architecturally sound (metrics pipeline, Decision Ledger,
PowerBI export, x3 deck structure are well-designed and grounded). The
attestation clarification (G-Q3) is the best-propagated concept in the
plan. The regression-capability gate (CAP-023/024) is a credible safeguard.
But the plan has one structural contradiction (NORTH_STAR:111 vs PO intent
vs grounding column) that infects 4 other findings (G-Q1, G-Q5, G-Q6,
G-Q9/slide 12). This is the v1.10 decay pattern (PRE_MORTEM FM-3)
repeating in the document meant to prevent it. The "no fabrication" hard
constraint is self-violated in two places (AI-Agent Intent Share placeholder
claim, derived-metrics-without-caveat) before a single slide is rendered.
The deck plan is story-competent but not story-excellent. 4 benefit
callouts are filler, 3 transitions are hand-waved (incl. the critical
Act 3→4 boundary), slide 9 is the audience-loss slide, and the closing
ask is insider language.
**12 binding decisions, 2 escalations.** None require re-architecting the
plan; all are edits to NORTH_STAR (2 rows + 1 line, with commit trailer),
the deck slide plan (4 slide rewrites, 1 split, 3 transition rewrites),
and one placeholder-view addition. Estimate: 1–2 phases of rework, not a
milestone restart. The plan does NOT need a revision loop — it needs
these 12 fixes applied in P0 (NORTH_STAR) and P5 (deck) before the
respective phases ship. Critical path unchanged.
**Can the milestone proceed?**
YES, once the 12 BIND decisions are incorporated (G-Q1/Q4/Q5/Q6 into P0
NORTH_STAR + P5 deck plan; G-Q8/Q9/Q10/Q11/Q13/Q14/Q15/Q16 into P5 deck
plan). E-003/E-004 require PO decisions on NORTH_STAR target framing.
Confidence 0.80.