docs(P2): restore clean style — theme:default + inline style (REQ-265,266,267)

Reverted frontmatter theme: nova-sp -> theme: default + inline style: block with S&P palette (#D6002A, #1B1B1B, Akkurat Pro). Retired nova-sp-theme.css from render path (kept as reference with header comment). render_slides.sh drops --theme arg. Converted all 21 **Benefit:** callouts to <div class='benefit'> (red top-rule + black italic; white on title slides). Matches the old the-developer-experience.html clean style. ---ci--- project: acdl phase: 2 milestone: v1.23 status: execute phase_role: execution ---/ci---
2026-08-12 00:14:07 +00:00
parent c9ace0af6e
commit 9114227ef1
5 changed files with 940 additions and 72 deletions
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+/* RETAINED AS REFERENCE ONLY — not loaded at render time.
+ * The live deck uses Marp `default` theme + an inline `style:` block in
+ * the -marp.md frontmatter. This file is kept for future styling work
+ * reference. Do NOT pass via `--theme`; it is not in the render path.
+ */
 /* @theme nova-sp */
 /* Nova — S&P Global Energy theme for Marp decks.
 *
@@ -1,9 +1,29 @@
 ---
 marp: true
-theme: nova-sp
+theme: default
 paginate: true
 size: 16x9
 footer: 'Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform'
+style: |
+  section { font-family: "Akkurat Pro", "Helvetica Neue", "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 22px; color: #1B1B1B; padding: 48px 56px 40px; overflow: auto; }
+  h1 { color: #D6002A; font-size: 34px; margin-bottom: 0.3em; }
+  h2 { color: #D6002A; font-size: 26px; margin-bottom: 0.2em; }
+  h3 { color: #D6002A; font-size: 22px; margin-bottom: 0.2em; }
+  section.title { background: #1B1B1B; color: #fff; border-top: 8px solid #D6002A; }
+  section.title h1, section.title h2 { color: #fff; }
+  section.title header, section.title footer { display: none; }
+  table { font-size: 18px; width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; }
+  th { background: #F0F0F0; border-bottom: 2px solid #D6002A; padding: 4px 8px; text-align: left; }
+  td { border-bottom: 1px solid #F0F0F0; padding: 4px 8px; }
+  blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #D6002A; color: #2E2E2E; font-size: 20px; padding-left: 12px; }
+  pre { background: #1B1B1B; color: #fff; border-radius: 4px; padding: 12px; font-size: 16px; }
+  code { background: #F0F0F0; color: #1B1B1B; border-radius: 2px; padding: 1px 4px; font-size: 18px; }
+  pre code { background: transparent; color: inherit; }
+  img { display: block; margin: 0 auto; max-width: 100%; max-height: 380px; object-fit: contain; }
+  strong { color: #D6002A; }
+  .benefit { margin-top: 0.6em; padding-top: 0.4em; border-top: 1px solid #D6002A; color: #1B1B1B; font-size: 20px; font-style: italic; }
+  section.title .benefit { color: #fff; }
+  @media print { section { overflow: hidden; } }
 ---

 <!-- _class: title -->
@@ -28,7 +48,7 @@ Product Development & Citizen Developer Overview

 Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrastructure is an hour not spent releasing features to production.

-**Benefit:** the answer is an autonomous cloud delivery platform that encodes discipline as policy, scans proactively, remediates rapidly, and makes operations visible to leadership rather than hidden in tribal knowledge.
+<div class="benefit">the answer is an autonomous cloud delivery platform that encodes discipline as policy, scans proactively, remediates rapidly, and makes operations visible to leadership rather than hidden in tribal knowledge.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: Do not frame this as "humans are the problem." The problem is that ownership was granted without the discipline, tooling, and lifecycle planning that infrastructure requires. The operator is not the bottleneck because operators exist — the bottleneck is that operations depend on a few individuals instead of an encoded system. -->
 <!-- Transition: Here is the destination Nova is building toward. -->
@@ -44,7 +64,7 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast
 - **Provable, not promised** — trust established by deterministic scripts that calculate a score; the platform functions without AI
 - **Autonomy in operations, human at stage gates** — QA signs off for production; SRE greenlights operational readiness

-**Benefit:** the destination is autonomous operations with provable trust — security, remediation velocity, reliability, and lead time made visible to leadership, not promised to them.
+<div class="benefit">the destination is autonomous operations with provable trust — security, remediation velocity, reliability, and lead time made visible to leadership, not promised to them.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: "Visible" is the operative word. The vision is not just that operations run without an operator — it is that operations become observable, queryable, and accountable. That is what makes the trust defensible. -->
 <!-- Transition: The vision is ambitious — here are the strategic objectives that make it concrete, and the anti-goals that keep it focused. -->
@@ -61,7 +81,7 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast
   - **Lead Time** (PR → Production) · **Infrastructure Vulnerability Count** (trend) · **MTTR** · **Cloud Spend Reduction**
 4. **Integrate with externally owned development platforms — regardless of source** — PDLC, SDLC, Agentic, or Citizen Developer; Nova provides skills + MCP endpoints; all prod intents go through the same controls and quality gates

-**Benefit:** the scope is explicit — Nova governs infrastructure and delivery, integrates with any upstream source through one validated contract, and measures success on four metrics a CTO can repeat back.
+<div class="benefit">the scope is explicit — Nova governs infrastructure and delivery, integrates with any upstream source through one validated contract, and measures success on four metrics a CTO can repeat back.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: Objective #2 is the one to land carefully: trust is established by deterministic scoring, not by an LLM. The platform functions without AI. -->
 <!-- Transition: The objectives are concrete — here is what Nova is NOT, to keep it focused. -->
@@ -76,7 +96,7 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast
 3. Not an upstream development platform (no product backlogs, IDE, code authorship)
 4. Not a replacement for the Product Development Lifecycle (PDLC)

-**Benefit:** the boundaries are explicit — Nova is purpose-built for infrastructure operations and delivery, not a general-purpose AI agent or an upstream development platform.
+<div class="benefit">the boundaries are explicit — Nova is purpose-built for infrastructure operations and delivery, not a general-purpose AI agent or an upstream development platform.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: Anti-goals #3 and #4 protect the scope boundary — Nova will not become an IDE or a product-planning tool. -->
 <!-- Transition: The scope boundary is explicit — here is exactly where Nova sits relative to the product development lifecycle. -->
@@ -93,7 +113,7 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast
 - **The integration point is one contract** — any upstream source (AI agent, agentic SDLC, dev platform) produces submissions subject to the same compliance standards
 - **Nova validates the submission, not the author** — the audit trail, the policy envelope, and the evidence stream are the same regardless of source

-**Benefit:** a clean scope boundary — Nova is purpose-built for infrastructure operations and integrates with any upstream source through one validated contract, so the platform team's surface area stays bounded.
+<div class="benefit">a clean scope boundary — Nova is purpose-built for infrastructure operations and integrates with any upstream source through one validated contract, so the platform team's surface area stays bounded.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: This slide protects the scope. The moment Nova starts owning the PDLC, it loses focus. The contract boundary is what keeps Nova deep on infrastructure and delivery rather than shallow on everything. -->
 <!-- Transition: With the scope clear, here is who owns what across the delivery lifecycle. -->
@@ -118,7 +138,7 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast

 **R**=Responsible · **A**=Accountable (sign-off) · **C**=Consulted · **I**=Informed. Production readiness is co-owned: the platform runs attestations agentically; the citizen developer authorizes the promotion at the stage gate.

-**Benefit:** every party knows what they bring, what the platform provides, what quality engineering guards, and where SRE signs off — accountability is explicit, never diffuse.
+<div class="benefit">every party knows what they bring, what the platform provides, what quality engineering guards, and where SRE signs off — accountability is explicit, never diffuse.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: Quality attestation is now owned by Quality Engineering (not the Platform), and Production readiness is owned by SRE. The Platform runs the checks agentically but is never the Accountable party for the gate — that separation keeps the platform honest. -->
 <!-- Transition: With ownership clear, here is how the pipeline enforces it. -->
@@ -136,7 +156,7 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast
 - **Fail-fast, quick feedback** — Checkov runs on the authored Terraform code before `terraform plan` so developers get immediate policy feedback
 - **Wiz on the plan when configured; Checkov as a drop-in otherwise** — Wiz scans the plan output; when Wiz credentials are absent, Checkov runs against the plan. **Wiz and Checkov are never both run on the plan.**

-**Benefit:** two layers of scanning, zero operator involvement in normal operations — fast deterministic feedback at authoring time and a runtime scan on the resolved plan.
+<div class="benefit">two layers of scanning, zero operator involvement in normal operations — fast deterministic feedback at authoring time and a runtime scan on the resolved plan.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: The two-stage scan is the key design: static code scanning catches policy violations before the cost of a plan; runtime plan scanning catches what the static code cannot (resolved values, cross-resource issues). The platform picks the runtime scanner based on configuration — never both, to avoid duplicate noise. -->
 <!-- Transition: The pipeline produces decisions — here is how every decision is captured and made accountable. -->
@@ -152,7 +172,7 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast
 - **"AI decisions" are really automated decisions** — made by deterministic scripts that calculate a score and a band; the platform functions without AI. When an LLM planner is added later, it will emit richer alternatives without breaking the schema.
 - **The value is accountability, not the storage engine** — the ledger is append-only and tamper-evident; every decision is queryable for auditing, traceable to an outcome, and impossible to rewrite after the fact.

-**Benefit:** "autonomous" is defensible because every decision is immutable, queryable, and accountable — and the audience knows exactly what "automated" means here: deterministic scoring, not a black-box LLM.
+<div class="benefit">"autonomous" is defensible because every decision is immutable, queryable, and accountable — and the audience knows exactly what "automated" means here: deterministic scoring, not a black-box LLM.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: Do not dwell on the storage substrate. The audience cares that the ledger is append-only, queryable, and tied to outcomes — not that it is a hash-chain in a SQLite file. The D-122 honesty point is restated without the decision ID: the platform's decisions are deterministic; the ledger captures that real path. -->
 <!-- Transition: Decisions are captured — here is how stage-gate attestation keeps humans in accountability. -->
@@ -170,7 +190,7 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast
 | Performance baseline | qa | 7d | The deployment meets its performance envelope vs. the agreed baseline. |
 | Security posture | qa | 24h | The deployment's security findings have been reviewed and accepted. |

-**Benefit:** QA signs off on quality before any promotion — the gate is explicit, not implicit.
+<div class="benefit">QA signs off on quality before any promotion — the gate is explicit, not implicit.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: The matrix is not a rubber stamp. Each concern has a freshness window and a plain-language description of what is being attested. The "operator-supplied" label from the prior deck was dropped — every concern now has a plain-language description. -->
 <!-- Transition: QA is half the matrix — here are the production and DR controls. -->
@@ -194,7 +214,7 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast

 Separation-of-duties on prod: the approver cannot be the same person who built the deployment.

-**Benefit:** the gate model is explicit — autonomy in operations, human in accountability, by design. The matrix is what makes autonomous operations safe enough to trust in production.
+<div class="benefit">the gate model is explicit — autonomy in operations, human in accountability, by design. The matrix is what makes autonomous operations safe enough to trust in production.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: The prod/DR rows are the operational-readiness and resilience gates — SRE signs off on operability, incident response, capacity, and the three resilience checks (DR drill, chaos, backup). Separation-of-duties on prod is the rule that keeps the gate honest: the approver cannot be the same person who built the deployment. -->
 <!-- Transition: You've seen how Nova works — the pipeline, the ledger, the attestation gates. Here is how Nova instruments itself so that every claim in this deck is traceable to a real signal. -->
@@ -212,7 +232,7 @@ Separation-of-duties on prod: the approver cannot be the same person who built t
 - **The live ops dashboard (PowerBI)** surfaces the four CTO-grade metrics (Lead Time, Vulnerability Count, MTTR, Cloud Spend) alongside trust metrics (Decision Ledger coverage, Attestation coverage) and efficiency metrics (touchless resolution, escalation frequency)
 - **Every number is traceable to a signal** — when a CFO asks "where does this number come from?", the answer is a query against the cold store, not a Slack thread

-**Benefit:** the architecture is the trust substrate — leadership sees the same numbers the platform produces, in PowerBI, with full traceability. Operations become visible.
+<div class="benefit">the architecture is the trust substrate — leadership sees the same numbers the platform produces, in PowerBI, with full traceability. Operations become visible.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: The value is not the plumbing — it is that the platform's metrics surface in a tool leadership already uses (PowerBI), and every number is traceable. The live-ops dashboard is where the "infrastructure operations become visible" theme lands concretely. -->
 <!-- Transition: The architecture is sound — here is the measured proof. -->
@@ -229,7 +249,7 @@ Separation-of-duties on prod: the approver cannot be the same person who built t
 - **No change to production without both** — the ledger entry and the human attestation are mandatory, enforced by the pipeline, not by policy
 - **Full traceability** — a production change is traceable from the contract that declared intent, through the policy scan, the confidence score, the attestation, to the applied outcome

-**Benefit:** trust is provable — not a marketing claim, a queryable record. An auditor answers "who approved this, when, on what evidence?" in one query; a CTO answers "how many of last quarter's prod changes were touchless?" in one query.
+<div class="benefit">trust is provable — not a marketing claim, a queryable record. An auditor answers "who approved this, when, on what evidence?" in one query; a CTO answers "how many of last quarter's prod changes were touchless?" in one query.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: The mandatory-by-design point is the one to land. The ledger + attestation are not a best-effort feature; they are a gate. No change reaches production without both. That is what makes the 100% numbers credible — they are enforced, not aspirational. -->
 <!-- Transition: Trust is provable — here is the cost side of the ROI. -->
@@ -247,7 +267,7 @@ Separation-of-duties on prod: the approver cannot be the same person who built t
 - **The four CTO-grade metrics are the ROI proof:** Lead Time (PR → Prod), Infrastructure Vulnerability Count (trend), MTTR, Cloud Spend Reduction — all flow into PowerBI
 - **Honest caveat:** derived metrics are computed on internal runs today; the production-denominator activates when a pilot estate runs. The formula is grounded; the production numbers are not yet.

-**Benefit:** the ROI is not a black box — the formula is shown, the four metrics are committed, and the production-denominator caveat is stated up front. The CFO sees exactly what is real today and what activates with a pilot.
+<div class="benefit">the ROI is not a black box — the formula is shown, the four metrics are committed, and the production-denominator caveat is stated up front. The CFO sees exactly what is real today and what activates with a pilot.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: The formula is shown inline, not hidden. The "no fabrication" constraint in action: show the formula, show the caveat, do not pretend the production numbers exist. -->
 <!-- Transition: The proof is grounded — here is what is honestly deferred, and why. -->
@@ -270,7 +290,7 @@ To be clear: these deferrals are *measurement infrastructure*, not the autonomy
 | 5 | Live cost reconciliation | Live AWS re-provisioning + actual-spend feed |
 | 6 | Predictive vs reactive ratio | ML anomaly-forecasting service (not yet built) |

-**Benefit:** the boundaries are explicit — what Nova measures today, and exactly what blocks the rest. The autonomy is real; the measurement gaps are documented with the work that unblocks each one.
+<div class="benefit">the boundaries are explicit — what Nova measures today, and exactly what blocks the rest. The autonomy is real; the measurement gaps are documented with the work that unblocks each one.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: The preempt is critical: these deferrals are measurement infrastructure, not autonomy. The platform runs without an operator in the loop. What is deferred is the evidence pipeline for live-infra health, drift, predictive remediation — not the autonomy itself. -->
 <!-- Transition: The proof is honest — here is the roadmap from here to the targets. -->
@@ -293,7 +313,7 @@ To be clear: these deferrals are *measurement infrastructure*, not the autonomy

 Re-evaluation triggers: each blocking piece of work lifts on its own schedule; the metrics layer evolves as each one lands.

-**Benefit:** every deferred metric has an unblock path — nothing is hand-waved; everything has a plan and a timeframe.
+<div class="benefit">every deferred metric has an unblock path — nothing is hand-waved; everything has a plan and a timeframe.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: This is the bridge from "honestly deferred" to "here is how we get there." The roadmap uses timeframes, not status — most of it is not implemented yet, so a status column would be noise. -->
 <!-- Transition: The unblock path is clear — here is the 12-month product arc. -->
@@ -314,7 +334,7 @@ Re-evaluation triggers: each blocking piece of work lifts on its own schedule; t

 Grounded in the four strategic objectives (autonomy, provable trust, ROI, integration) and the deferred-metric unblock paths.

-**Benefit:** the 12-month product arc — each quarter activates a strategic objective and its corresponding board-level metric, from pilot activation through integration leadership.
+<div class="benefit">the 12-month product arc — each quarter activates a strategic objective and its corresponding board-level metric, from pilot activation through integration leadership.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: The roadmap is organized by product outcome, not by technical milestone. Each quarter activates one strategic objective from the North Star. -->
 <!-- Transition: Here is the quarter-by-quarter detail. -->
@@ -333,7 +353,7 @@ Grounded in the four strategic objectives (autonomy, provable trust, ROI, integr

 **Month-18 destination:** *"Nova is the layer enterprise leadership points to when they say 'we don't have an infrastructure ops team anymore, and the audit trail is stronger than it ever was.'"*

-**Benefit:** each quarter has a concrete deliverable, a target metric grounded in a strategic objective, and a path from "honestly deferred" to "shipped and measured."
+<div class="benefit">each quarter has a concrete deliverable, a target metric grounded in a strategic objective, and a path from "honestly deferred" to "shipped and measured."</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: Q1–Q3 are committed (grounded pipeline + known unblock paths). Q4 targets are committed-deliverable, aspirational-metric — the ML service ships, the intent-share number is a first measurement (we do not control adoption rate). -->
 <!-- Transition: Production-grade guidance is how Nova helps the citizen developer's AI agent meet the bar — here is the first half. -->
@@ -349,7 +369,7 @@ Grounded in the four strategic objectives (autonomy, provable trust, ROI, integr
 - **MCP server** — a plugin-registry, stdio server exposing four tools: `lookup_principle`, `list_domains`, `matrix_lookup`, `validate_against_principles`. The developer's AI agent (or any agentic SDLC platform) calls these tools to look up the principles that apply to its submission
 - **The integration point is the same regardless of source** — whether the submission comes from an AI coding agent, an agentic SDLC platform, or a traditional IDE, the same skills and MCP server apply. This is how Nova makes the citizen developer production-grade without owning the PDLC

-**Benefit:** the citizen developer's AI agent is not unguided — Nova provides production-grade engineering principles as skills and as an MCP surface, so submissions arrive at the contract boundary already aligned with the platform's standards.
+<div class="benefit">the citizen developer's AI agent is not unguided — Nova provides production-grade engineering principles as skills and as an MCP surface, so submissions arrive at the contract boundary already aligned with the platform's standards.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: This is the first half of the Atelier story — the surface (skills + MCP). The next slide is what the surface catches that deterministic scanners cannot. -->
 <!-- Transition: Here is what that guidance catches that deterministic scanners cannot. -->
@@ -365,7 +385,7 @@ Grounded in the four strategic objectives (autonomy, provable trust, ROI, integr
 - **Agentic validation, not a second policy engine** — the MCP server gives the AI agent the principles to validate against; the agent does the validation. The agent reasons about the submission against the principles, not a second static scan
 - **Vendored for audit reproducibility** — Atelier is vendored at a pinned tag. A validation result is replayable against the exact principles that produced it, so an audit can reproduce a validation months later, not just trust a log line

-**Benefit:** the citizen developer's submission is checked for engineering discipline, not just policy compliance — and the check is reproducible for audit. That is what makes the submission production-grade, regardless of which upstream platform produced it.
+<div class="benefit">the citizen developer's submission is checked for engineering discipline, not just policy compliance — and the check is reproducible for audit. That is what makes the submission production-grade, regardless of which upstream platform produced it.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: The value is the gap deterministic scanners leave: engineering discipline. Policy scanners catch "is this S3 bucket public?"; the MCP server catches "is this service observable if that bucket fails?". The vendoring point is audit reproducibility — the validation is not a black box. -->
 <!-- Transition: You've seen the problem, the solution, and the proof. Here is the recap and the ask. -->
@@ -385,7 +405,7 @@ Grounded in the four strategic objectives (autonomy, provable trust, ROI, integr

 **The ask:** "Approve a pilot estate to activate the production-denominator metrics (Lead Time, Vulnerability Count, MTTR, Cloud Spend), and approve the tamper-evident ledger build-out to move from the local hash-chain to S3 Object Lock + signed checkpoints. These two decisions move Nova from 'pipeline-ready' to 'production-proven.'"

-**Benefit:** a clear business decision — approve a pilot and the ledger build-out — with the confidence that every claim in this deck is grounded, derived, or honestly deferred.
+<div class="benefit">a clear business decision — approve a pilot and the ledger build-out — with the confidence that every claim in this deck is grounded, derived, or honestly deferred.</div>

 <!-- Speaker notes: The ask is a business decision, not insider language. "Approve a pilot estate" is a C-suite decision. "Approve the ledger build-out" is a budget decision. The recap reinforces the 4-beat arc — the audience leaves with the structure, not a pile of facts. -->
 <!-- Talking points: Recap the 4-beat arc so the audience leaves with the structure; The ask is a business decision: approve a pilot estate + the tamper-evident ledger build-out; "Pipeline-ready" → "production-proven" is the value proposition; Key takeaway: approve a pilot + the ledger build-out to move from pipeline-ready to production-proven -->
@@ -413,6 +433,6 @@ Grounded in the four strategic objectives (autonomy, provable trust, ROI, integr
 | Attestation Coverage | prod/dr attested ÷ total prod/dr | grounded |
 | Policy Compliance Rate | 1 − failed_assets ÷ total | grounded |

-**Benefit:** a reference for every metric mentioned in the deck.
+<div class="benefit">a reference for every metric mentioned in the deck.</div>

 <!-- Talking points: Reference for every metric mentioned in the deck; Use if the audience asks "what does X mean?" -->