diff --git a/.ciagent/GRILL.md b/.ciagent/GRILL.md
index 90ba90a..9e754c2 100644
--- a/.ciagent/GRILL.md
+++ b/.ciagent/GRILL.md
@@ -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.