Multi-persona review of the grill deliverable (2 commits, 2 docs files).
P1-1 (auto-fixed): two mis-citations in GRILL.md cited
PROJECT.md:6 for the "0 consumer adoption" quote, but line 6 reads
"deployment through an agentic stack..." — the quote is at
PROJECT.md:487. Fixed both instances (Axis 1 Q3 + Axis 9 Q1).
Persona review:
- Correctness: 12 binding decisions traceable to evidence; 2 escalations
correctly unresolved. All file:line citations now validate against
source files. PASS (after P1 fix).
- Testing: docs-only; 513 fast tests pass (no regression). PASS.
- Security: no credential leakage; no sensitive data in report. PASS.
- Performance: N/A (docs file; no runtime cost). PASS.
- Maintainability: report follows grill workflow Step 5 format; appendable
for future runs. PASS.
- Adversarial: AWS account 581513795199 + CAPABILITY_INVENTORY section
references validated against source. Escalations surfaced, not skipped.
PASS.
Verified after fix: all citations valid.
---ci---
project: acdl
phase: 0
milestone: v1.10
status: verify
lessons:
- P1 fix: GRILL.md cited PROJECT.md:6 for "0 consumer adoption" but the
quote is at PROJECT.md:487. Evidence citations must be validated
against source line numbers, not just the file.
---/ci---
First grill run. Verdict: Proceed with conditions (confidence 0.72).
All 9 axes + meta reviewed; 10 binding decisions, 2 escalations.
Key reclassification: ACDL is an OSS reference implementation (G-003),
not a sponsored product. The grill's sponsor/ROI/budget/timeline axes
apply in weakened form; adoption, architecture, and risks apply in full.
Escalations (must resolve before leadership pitch):
- G-005 (risks): 6 cloud capabilities (CAP-017..022) deploy-unverified;
re-bootstrap IAM or mark deploy-unverified in decks.
- G-008 (budget): no cost documentation despite live AWS resources;
add COST.md or document zero-cloud-cost operating model.
---ci---
project: acdl
phase: 0
milestone: v1.10
status: grill
decisions:
- id: G-001
decision: Feature-complete MVP for leadership pitch + pilot consumers in parallel; CIAgent builds, Platform Team deploys.
rationale: PROJECT.md admits 0 consumer adoption across 10 milestones; user clarified the pitch is the sponsor-acquisition moment and pilot consumers run in parallel.
confidence: 0.65
alternatives: [treat as pre-product and pause, dogfood via CI, add v1.11 adoption milestone]
- id: G-002
decision: ACDL is white-label; Platform Team customization is out-of-repo.
rationale: User clarified the repo must stay generic for any platform team at any company; ops-handoff concern is intentionally out of scope.
confidence: 0.78
alternatives: [Platform Team joins post-pitch, CIAgent is ops team for MVP]
- id: G-003
decision: Reframe as OSS reference implementation; no sponsor/ROI required.
rationale: White-label framing (G-002) makes ACDL a product with no signed pilot; user chose OSS reference framing where the bar is credible reference, not paying customer.
confidence: 0.85
alternatives: [escalate for named sponsor, treat senior leadership as sponsor]
- id: G-004
decision: Keep production-deployment vision; reference describes target state.
rationale: PROJECT.md North Star describes the state a downstream team would achieve, not ACDL-the-repo's own production state; no rewrite needed.
confidence: 0.75
alternatives: [rewrite vision to OSS framing, escalate positioning instability]
- id: G-005
decision: ESCALATION — re-bootstrap IAM or mark CAP-017..022 deploy-unverified in decks.
rationale: 6 of 22 advertised capabilities (27%) are unverifiable; terraform plan path is hope over evidence; no admin principal engaged; no pre-mortem.
confidence: 0.80
alternatives: [accept design-verified+locally-emulated as the bar, disclosure is sufficient]
- id: G-006
decision: Autonomous OSS build has no deadline; cadence acceptable.
rationale: 10 milestones in 6 days with no deadline, critical path, or estimate basis; user accepts this for an autonomous OSS reference build.
confidence: 0.72
alternatives: [disclose no-deadline basis in PROJECT.md, impose dwell time / external review]
- id: G-007
decision: Milestone-level regression gate is correct; system worked as designed.
rationale: D-091 regression gate caught the 8-phase decay at the milestone boundary; per-phase regression is accepted as unnecessary cost.
confidence: 0.70
alternatives: [extend regression gate to per-phase, treat decay as one-time event]
- id: G-008
decision: ESCALATION — add COST.md or document zero-cloud-cost operating model.
rationale: No cost documentation exists despite live AWS resources (account 581513795199); financial-control gap.
confidence: 0.74
alternatives: [near-zero cloud cost; no doc needed, budget is downstream-team concern]
- id: G-009
decision: Autonomous CI is the governance; no human stop-trigger needed.
rationale: config.json defines autonomy level, escalation hooks, confidence thresholds; user accepts this as the governance mechanism despite v1.10 decay incident.
confidence: 0.68
alternatives: [add documented stop-trigger to PROJECT.md, user is the stop-trigger]
- id: G-010
decision: OSS scope is contributor-bounded; no out-of-scope table needed.
rationale: User accepts that an OSS reference implementation's scope is bounded by contributors, not by a formal out-of-scope table; v1.9.x deck-polish expansion accepted.
confidence: 0.65
alternatives: [add current Out-of-Scope section to PROJECT.md, Domain Boundaries is sufficient]
- id: G-011
decision: Single-maintainer is normal for OSS reference; no action.
rationale: Bus factor is 1 (the user); user accepts this as normal for an OSS reference implementation; downstream forks improve the bus factor.
confidence: 0.70
alternatives: [document single-maintainer bus-factor-1 in PROJECT.md, pin agent/model version]
- id: G-012
decision: Full catalog is the value; no minimal release needed.
rationale: User accepts the full 115-requirement build as the reference value; trimming to v1.2-equivalent would reduce the reference value for downstream teams.
confidence: 0.68
alternatives: [tag minimal-reference release (v1.2-equivalent), decks are the 80%-value artifact]
escalations:
- G-005: 6 cloud capabilities (CAP-017..022) deploy-unverified; re-bootstrap IAM with admin principal or explicitly mark deploy-unverified in every leadership deck before the pitch.
- G-008: no cost documentation despite live AWS resources; add COST.md or document zero-cloud-cost operating model.
---/ci---
Jon Chery