fix(P4): trim/split 8 overflowing slides + remove header (REQ-261)
Split slide 3 (Objectives + Anti-Goals) into Slide 3 (Objectives) + Slide 4 (Anti-Goals). Split slide 8 (Attestation Matrix) into Slide 9 (QA concerns, 3 rows) + Slide 10 (Prod/DR concerns, 7 rows). Main slide count 18 -> 20. Trimmed: slide 7 (Pipeline) reduced to 3 bullets (4th covered by diagram). slide 11 (Telemetry) reduced to 3 bullets. slide 14 (Deferred) merged 3 Live-AWS rows into 1 (8 -> 6 rows). slide 17 (Quarter-by-Quarter) dropped Grounding column (5 -> 4 cols). Global table cell padding reduced (6px 10px -> 4px 8px) so 8-13 row tables fit. Removed header: from frontmatter (keep footer: + paginate only). The full 51-char deck title in BOTH header and footer was redundant chrome eating ~35px on every slide. Updated test_marp_deck_slide_count (18 -> 20 main + 1 appendix). Updated README slide-count convention (18 -> 20). ---ci--- project: acdl phase: 4 milestone: v1.22 status: execute phase_role: execution ---/ci---
This commit is contained in:
Jon Chery
@@ -126,10 +126,11 @@ docs/presentations/
|
||||
|
||||
### Appendix structure
|
||||
|
||||
Each Marp deck has **18 main slides + 1 appendix slide**. The main 18 are the
|
||||
presentation; the appendix is for Q&A backup.
|
||||
Each Marp deck has **20 main slides + 1 appendix slide**. The main 20 are the
|
||||
presentation; the appendix is for Q&A backup. (v1.22 split slides 3 and 8
|
||||
to relieve overflow, increasing the count from 18 to 20.)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Main slides** (1-18): the story arc — Problem → Solution → Proof →
|
||||
- **Main slides** (1-20): the story arc — Problem → Solution → Proof →
|
||||
Roadmap + Ask. These are what the audience sees during the talk.
|
||||
- **Appendix slide** (A1): the Metrics Glossary — detail-heavy reference for
|
||||
Q&A.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -68,8 +68,8 @@ section.title header, section.title footer { display: none; }
|
||||
|
||||
/* Tables — grey header with red underline, explicit white body for readability on any background */
|
||||
table { font-size: 18px; width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; background: var(--sp-white); }
|
||||
th { background: var(--sp-grey); border-bottom: 2px solid var(--sp-red); padding: 6px 10px; text-align: left; }
|
||||
td { background: var(--sp-white); color: var(--sp-black); border-bottom: 1px solid var(--sp-grey); padding: 6px 10px; }
|
||||
th { background: var(--sp-grey); border-bottom: 2px solid var(--sp-red); padding: 4px 8px; text-align: left; }
|
||||
td { background: var(--sp-white); color: var(--sp-black); border-bottom: 1px solid var(--sp-grey); padding: 4px 8px; }
|
||||
/* Ensure tables on dark/title slides remain readable: white card with a subtle border */
|
||||
section.title table, section table { background: var(--sp-white); }
|
||||
section.title td, section td { background: var(--sp-white); color: var(--sp-black); }
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ marp: true
|
||||
theme: nova-sp
|
||||
paginate: true
|
||||
size: 16x9
|
||||
header: 'Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform'
|
||||
footer: 'Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform'
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -45,7 +44,7 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 3 — Strategic Objectives + Anti-Goals
|
||||
## Slide 3 — Strategic Objectives
|
||||
|
||||
**4 Strategic Objectives:**
|
||||
1. **Zero-touch operations** — autonomy as the default, not the demo; stage-gate attestation (QA, SRE) remains human by design
|
||||
@@ -54,17 +53,22 @@ 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
|
||||
|
||||
**4 Anti-Goals (what Nova is NOT):**
|
||||
**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.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 4 — Anti-Goals (What Nova Is NOT)
|
||||
|
||||
1. Not a general-purpose AI agent platform
|
||||
2. Not a system that removes humans from accountability — only from normal operations
|
||||
3. Not an upstream development platform (no product backlogs, IDE, code authorship)
|
||||
4. Not a replacement for the Product Development Lifecycle (PDLC)
|
||||
|
||||
**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.
|
||||
**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.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 4 — Scope: Downstream of PDLC
|
||||
## Slide 5 — Scope: Downstream of PDLC
|
||||
|
||||
**Nova governs infrastructure and delivery. The PDLC is upstream — Nova never penetrates it. Integration is through one validated contract.**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -77,7 +81,7 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 5 — RACI: Who Owns What
|
||||
## Slide 6 — RACI: Who Owns What
|
||||
|
||||
**Four roles, one matrix — citizen developer owns FRs + UAT, platform owns NFRs + infra, quality engineering owns the gate evidence, SRE owns operational readiness.**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -98,7 +102,7 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 6 — The Platform Pipeline
|
||||
## Slide 7 — The Platform Pipeline
|
||||
|
||||
**How intent becomes verified infrastructure — fail-fast policy scanning before the plan, runtime scanning after it.**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -107,13 +111,12 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast
|
||||
- **Contract → resolver → adapter → Checkov on static code (before plan) → terraform plan → Wiz on the plan → confidence signal → stage gate → apply → evidence + ledger**
|
||||
- **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.**
|
||||
- **Dev is autonomous** (no stage gate); **qa/prod/dr require human attestation** (QA for quality, SRE for production readiness)
|
||||
|
||||
**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.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 7 — The Decision Ledger
|
||||
## Slide 8 — The Decision Ledger
|
||||
|
||||
**Every automated decision is captured, immutable, queryable — and accountable.**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -125,15 +128,26 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 8 — The Attestation Matrix
|
||||
## Slide 9 — Attestation Matrix: QA
|
||||
|
||||
**The designed controls that keep humans at stage gates — structured, freshness-validated, separation-of-duties-enforced.**
|
||||
**The designed controls that keep humans at stage gates — QA concerns, freshness-validated.**
|
||||
|
||||
| Concern | Env | Freshness | Description |
|
||||
|---------|-----|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Functional correctness | qa | 24h | The application behaves as specified; evidence accepted from the consumer's UAT. |
|
||||
| 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.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 10 — Attestation Matrix: Prod/DR
|
||||
|
||||
**Production and DR controls — operational readiness, resilience, and disaster recovery.**
|
||||
|
||||
| Concern | Env | Freshness | Description |
|
||||
|---------|-----|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| Operational readiness | prod | 30d | SRE confirms the deployment is operable: runbooks, dashboards, on-call. |
|
||||
| Incident response | prod | 90d | The on-call path has been exercised; a working incident-response plan exists. |
|
||||
| Capacity & cost | prod | 30d | Capacity headroom and monthly cost are within the agreed envelope. |
|
||||
@@ -148,7 +162,7 @@ Separation-of-duties on prod: the approver cannot be the same person who built t
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 9 — Telemetry & Live Ops
|
||||
## Slide 11 — Telemetry & Live Ops
|
||||
|
||||
**Every metric in this deck is traceable to a real emitted signal — the live-ops dashboard makes operations visible in PowerBI.**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -156,28 +170,26 @@ Separation-of-duties on prod: the approver cannot be the same person who built t
|
||||
|
||||
- **Platform components → CloudEvents envelope → event log + decision ledger + run records → collector → cold store → PowerBI views → live ops dashboard**
|
||||
- **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)
|
||||
- **Deliberately minimal** — Nova-native envelopes; no Kafka, no Prometheus, no ClickHouse. The cold store handles batch and historical analysis; the live-ops surface is built in PowerBI on the exported views
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 10 — Decision Ledger + Attestation Coverage
|
||||
## Slide 12 — Decision Ledger + Attestation Coverage
|
||||
|
||||
**By design, no change reaches production without a ledger entry and a human attestation — both queryable for auditing, with full traceability.**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Decision Ledger coverage: 100%** — every platform run emits a decision record with outcome backfill; no automated decision is ever lost
|
||||
- **Attestation coverage: 100%** — every prod/dr promotion is attested by a human (QA for quality, SRE for production readiness), recorded with approver identity, separation-of-duties check, and the evidence matrix
|
||||
- **No change to production without both** — the ledger entry and the human attestation are mandatory, enforced by the pipeline, not by policy
|
||||
- **Easily queried for auditing** — queryable by run, by environment, by approver, and by outcome; the audit trail is a query, not a forensic exercise
|
||||
- **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.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 11 — Cost & ROI
|
||||
## Slide 13 — Cost & ROI
|
||||
|
||||
**The ROI formula and the cost estimates — grounded, with the production denominator honestly flagged.**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -191,7 +203,7 @@ Separation-of-duties on prod: the approver cannot be the same person who built t
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 12 — What's Deferred — and Why
|
||||
## Slide 14 — What's Deferred — and Why
|
||||
|
||||
**Honesty about what is not measured yet — and the blocking work for each.**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -199,20 +211,18 @@ To be clear: these deferrals are *measurement infrastructure*, not the autonomy
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Deferred metric | Blocking work |
|
||||
|---|-----------------|---------------|
|
||||
| 1 | Live infrastructure health | Live AWS re-provisioning (currently torn down to zero-cost steady state) |
|
||||
| 2 | Live outbox write rate | Live AWS re-provisioning |
|
||||
| 3 | Tamper-evident ledger checkpoints | Audit-ledger build-out (Object Lock + signed checkpoints) |
|
||||
| 4 | Onboarding funnel (requested → granted) | Auto-grant implementation |
|
||||
| 5 | Drift auto-reversal | Drift-detection scheduler (not yet built) |
|
||||
| 6 | Live cost reconciliation | Live AWS re-provisioning + actual-spend feed |
|
||||
| 7 | SLA / unplanned downtime | Live AWS re-provisioning |
|
||||
| 8 | Predictive vs reactive ratio | ML anomaly-forecasting service (not yet built) |
|
||||
| 1 | Live infra health, outbox write rate, SLA | Live AWS re-provisioning (currently torn down to zero-cost steady state) |
|
||||
| 2 | Tamper-evident ledger checkpoints | Audit-ledger build-out (Object Lock + signed checkpoints) |
|
||||
| 3 | Onboarding funnel (requested → granted) | Auto-grant implementation |
|
||||
| 4 | Drift auto-reversal | Drift-detection scheduler (not yet built) |
|
||||
| 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.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 13 — Roadmap to the North Star
|
||||
## Slide 15 — Roadmap to the North Star
|
||||
|
||||
**The path from the grounded metrics to the 12–18 month targets — each deferred metric has an unblock path and a timeframe.**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -231,7 +241,7 @@ Re-evaluation triggers: each blocking piece of work lifts on its own schedule; t
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 14 — 12-Month Product Roadmap
|
||||
## Slide 16 — 12-Month Product Roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
**The product arc from pilot activation to integration — four quarters, four outcomes.**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -248,14 +258,14 @@ Grounded in the four strategic objectives (autonomy, provable trust, ROI, integr
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 15 — Quarter-by-Quarter Outcomes
|
||||
## Slide 17 — Quarter-by-Quarter Outcomes
|
||||
|
||||
| Quarter | Product theme | Key deliverable | Target metric | Grounding |
|
||||
|---------|---------------|-----------------|---------------|-----------|
|
||||
| **Q1** | Pilot Activation | Re-provision live AWS; activate first pilot estate; onboarding auto-grant | Touchless ≥ 99% · Escalation < 0.1% · Accuracy ≥ 99.5% | Objective #1 — autonomy as the default |
|
||||
| **Q2** | Provable Trust | Tamper-evident ledger (Object Lock + signed checkpoints); daily checkpoints; live cost reconciliation | Decision Ledger Coverage 100% · Cost Savings ≥ 25% | Objective #2 — trust is the moat |
|
||||
| **Q3** | Compounding ROI + Drift | Drift-detection scheduler; auto-reversal; pre-apply → actual-spend reconciliation on the pilot estate | Drift Auto-Reversal ≥ 95% · Spend Reduction ≥ 25% | Objective #3 — CFO-pointable numbers |
|
||||
| **Q4** | Integration + Predictive | ML anomaly-forecasting; AI-agent intent surface; multi-cloud (Azure/GCP) preview | Predictive:Reactive ≥ 3:1 · AI-Agent Intent Share (first measurement) | Objective #4 — default substrate for agents |
|
||||
| Quarter | Product theme | Key deliverable | Target metric |
|
||||
|---------|---------------|-----------------|---------------|
|
||||
| **Q1** | Pilot Activation | Re-provision live AWS; activate first pilot estate; onboarding auto-grant | Touchless ≥ 99% · Escalation < 0.1% · Accuracy ≥ 99.5% |
|
||||
| **Q2** | Provable Trust | Tamper-evident ledger (Object Lock + signed checkpoints); daily checkpoints; live cost reconciliation | Decision Ledger Coverage 100% · Cost Savings ≥ 25% |
|
||||
| **Q3** | Compounding ROI + Drift | Drift-detection scheduler; auto-reversal; pre-apply → actual-spend reconciliation on the pilot estate | Drift Auto-Reversal ≥ 95% · Spend Reduction ≥ 25% |
|
||||
| **Q4** | Integration + Predictive | ML anomaly-forecasting; AI-agent intent surface; multi-cloud (Azure/GCP) preview | Predictive:Reactive ≥ 3:1 · AI-Agent Intent Share (first measurement) |
|
||||
|
||||
**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.'"*
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -263,7 +273,7 @@ Grounded in the four strategic objectives (autonomy, provable trust, ROI, integr
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 16 — Production-Grade Guidance via Atelier (1/2)
|
||||
## Slide 18 — Production-Grade Guidance via Atelier (1/2)
|
||||
|
||||
**Nova instructs the citizen developer's AI agent on production-grade engineering — a set of skills and an MCP server.**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -275,7 +285,7 @@ Grounded in the four strategic objectives (autonomy, provable trust, ROI, integr
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 17 — Production-Grade Guidance via Atelier (2/2)
|
||||
## Slide 19 — Production-Grade Guidance via Atelier (2/2)
|
||||
|
||||
**Agentic validation catches engineering-discipline gaps that deterministic scanners miss — and the validation is reproducible.**
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -287,7 +297,7 @@ Grounded in the four strategic objectives (autonomy, provable trust, ROI, integr
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 18 — Recap + Ask
|
||||
## Slide 20 — Recap + Ask
|
||||
|
||||
**The 4-beat recap + the business decision.**
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user