docs(ship): Gitea releases created for v1.21.0..v1.21.6 + PPTX attached

All 7 Gitea releases created (ids 621-627) after fixing the token
variable name mismatch (config: ACDL_GITEA_TOKEN vs env:
NOVA_GITEA_TOKEN). Tags pushed to origin. PPTX attached to milestone
release v1.21.6 (asset id 98).

Release URLs: https://git.cloudinit.dev/continuous-intelligence/acdl/releases

---ci---
project: acdl
phase: 6
milestone: v1.22
status: complete
phase_role: final
---/ci---

.ciagent/CHECKPOINT.json

@@ -1,12 +1,28 @@
 {
-  "phase": 2,
+  "phase": 6,
   "stage": "complete",
   "milestone": "v1.22",
-  "phase_role": "execution",
+  "phase_role": "final",
   "attempts": 0,
-  "updated_at": "2026-08-11T14:50:00Z",
+  "updated_at": "2026-08-11T15:30:00Z",
-  "milestone_complete": false,
+  "milestone_complete": true,
-  "tag": "v1.21.2",
+  "tag": "v1.21.6",
-  "requirements": ["REQ-257","REQ-258"],
+  "requirements": ["REQ-254","REQ-255","REQ-256","REQ-257","REQ-258","REQ-259","REQ-260","REQ-261","REQ-262"],
-  "notes": "v1.22 P2 complete. Tag v1.21.2. render_deck.sh deleted, CLI versions pinned, 2x scale + transparent bg added. 4 render tests + 1 no-forge test pass. Proceeding to P3 (mermaid re-layout)."
+  "release": {
+    "forge": "gitea",
+    "releases_created": true,
+    "release_ids": {
+      "v1.21.0": 621,
+      "v1.21.1": 622,
+      "v1.21.2": 623,
+      "v1.21.3": 624,
+      "v1.21.4": 625,
+      "v1.21.5": 626,
+      "v1.21.6": 627
+    },
+    "milestone_release_id": 627,
+    "pptx_asset_id": 98,
+    "pptx_download_url": "https://git.cloudinit.dev/attachments/fe691962-4f4e-4321-ab5d-c2bb8c3fd6ad"
+  },
+  "notes": "v1.22 milestone complete. Tag v1.21.6 (milestone release). Merged to main + pushed to origin. All 7 Gitea releases created (ids 621-627). PPTX attached to milestone release (asset id 98). All milestone branches deleted. 9 requirements complete (REQ-254..262). 32 slide tests pass (23 original + 9 new). 94 key-file tests pass. Pipeline check exit 0. Next milestone starts fresh."
 }

.ciagent/REQUIREMENTS.md

@@ -1895,12 +1895,12 @@ assert 20 main + 1 appendix.
 
 | REQ | Phase | Status |
 |-----|-------|--------|
-| REQ-254 | P1 | pending |
+| REQ-254 | P1 | complete |
-| REQ-255 | P1 | pending |
+| REQ-255 | P1 | complete |
-| REQ-256 | P1 | pending |
+| REQ-256 | P1 | complete |
-| REQ-257 | P2 | pending |
+| REQ-257 | P2 | complete |
-| REQ-258 | P2 | pending |
+| REQ-258 | P2 | complete |
-| REQ-259 | P3 | pending |
+| REQ-259 | P3 | complete |
-| REQ-260 | P3 | pending |
+| REQ-260 | P3 | complete |
-| REQ-261 | P4 | pending |
+| REQ-261 | P4 | complete |
-| REQ-262 | P5 | pending |
+| REQ-262 | P5 | complete |

.ciagent/ROADMAP.md

@@ -1969,3 +1969,104 @@ release). **DONE.**
 - Ship: tag `v1.20.6` (final patch = milestone release). Requirements
   marked complete; ROADMAP marked complete; CHECKPOINT cleared.
 - **Requirements:** REQ-245..253 (9 requirements, all complete).
+
+## v1.22 — Nova Deck Layout Fix (complete)
+
+> Fixes the systemic layout/formatting problems in the Nova presentation
+> deck that made every slide look "out of whack" after the v1.21 P5
+> re-render. Root cause (per investigation): `nova-sp-theme.css` had
+> zero `section` padding (declared `/* @theme nova-sp */` as a comment,
+> not the `@theme` directive; did not `@import` Marp's default theme).
+> Combined with `overflow:hidden`, a blunt `img { max-height: 320px }`,
+> header+footer chrome on every slide, and two P5 diagrams with extreme
+> aspect ratios (13.52× and 0.63×), 8 of 19 slides overflowed.
+>
+> Tags run on the v1.21.x line (milestone v1.22 → tags v1.21.0..v1.21.6).
+
+### Phase P0 — pre-execution (complete, tag v1.21.0)
+- SPECIFY → CLARIFY → RESEARCH → PLAN → GRILL. Validated v1.22
+  requirements (REQ-254..262). 8 research findings persisted to
+  RESEARCH.md. 5 CLARIFY decisions auto-resolved (comprehensive scope,
+  full pipeline, re-layout to LR, delete render_deck.sh, split slides
+  3+8). Persona roster: 2 active (lead-developer + backend-engineer),
+  2 deactivated (frontend + data). Grill: PROCEED-WITH-REVISIONS
+  (3 revisions: aspect-ratio test scoped to deck PNGs, @import
+  rejection documented, marp version pinning fallback).
+
+### Phase P1 — theme-css (complete, tag v1.21.1)
+- REQ-254: `section { padding: 48px 56px 40px; overflow: auto; }` —
+  root cause fix (zero padding was why every slide looked jammed
+  against the edges).
+- REQ-255: `img { max-width: 100%; max-height: 380px; object-fit:
+  contain; }` + `.wide`/`.tall` classes — replaced blunt
+  `max-height: 320px` that broke `w:` directives on tall images.
+- REQ-256: `section.title header/footer { display: none; }` — title
+  chrome suppression. `h2 + p { margin-top: 0.2em; }`, `p { margin:
+  0.4em 0; }` — spacing tightening. `ol` styling. `table.dense`
+  class. `@media print { section { overflow: hidden; } }` for PPTX.
+
+### Phase P2 — render-scripts (complete, tag v1.21.2)
+- REQ-257: deleted `scripts/render_deck.sh` (omitted `--theme`,
+  produced unthemed output). Pinned marp-cli@4.5.0 + mermaid-cli@
+  11.16.0 in `render_slides.sh`. Removed references from README,
+  sync_to_nova.sh, test_no_forge_mentions.py.
+- REQ-258: added `-s 2 -b transparent` to mermaid-cli invocation
+  (README spec; produces crisp 2x PNGs with transparent backgrounds).
+
+### Phase P3 — mermaid-relayout (complete, tag v1.21.3)
+- REQ-259: `telemetry-live-ops.mmd` kept as `flowchart TB` (the 3-way
+  branch makes LR too wide at 4.22 aspect; TB gives 0.63 which is
+  legible at h:480 with img.tall class). Re-rendered at 2x transparent
+  (1024x1628).
+- REQ-260: `platform-pipeline.mmd` restructured from 10-node LR chain
+  (aspect 13.52, illegible 1000x74 strip) to 4-node TB with combined
+  nodes. Re-rendered at 2x transparent (552x1116, aspect 0.49).
+- Marp deck directives updated: `![w:1000]`/`![w:900]` →
+  `![h:480 class:tall]` so images render at legible height using the
+  img.tall class budget (480px).
+- Aspect-ratio bounds revised from [1.2, 2.5] to [0.4, 4.0] (accepts
+  both tall and wide diagrams; still catches original outliers).
+
+### Phase P4 — deck-content (complete, tag v1.21.4)
+- 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, 3 rows) + Slide 10 (Prod/DR, 7 rows).
+  Main slide count 18 → 20.
+- Trimmed: slide 7 (Pipeline) to 3 bullets. slide 11 (Telemetry) 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).
+- 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.
+- Source `.md` and talking-points re-synced to 20-slide structure.
+- Updated `test_marp_deck_slide_count` (18→20 main + 1 appendix).
+  Updated README slide-count convention (all 6 references).
+
+### Phase P5 — render-and-test (complete, tag v1.21.5)
+- REQ-262: re-rendered HTML + PPTX via `render_slides.sh` (pinned
+  marp-cli@4.5.0, mermaid-cli@11.16.0, 2x transparent PNGs). 22
+  slides (title + 20 main + 1 appendix), 23 media files embedded.
+  Theme embedded in HTML (--sp-red + padding confirmed).
+- Added 9 tests to `test_slides_pipeline.py` (the gap that let the
+  layout regression through): test_theme_css_has_section_padding,
+  test_theme_css_suppresses_title_chrome,
+  test_theme_css_has_aspect_ratio_aware_images,
+  test_png_aspect_ratios_sane (scoped to deck-referenced PNGs only
+  per GRILL revision 1, bounds [0.4, 4.0]),
+  test_render_slides_has_2x_scale, test_render_slides_pins_cli_versions,
+  test_render_deck_removed, test_html_embeds_theme,
+  test_html_slide_count_matches_marp.
+- 32 slide tests pass (23 original + 9 new). 94 key-file tests pass.
+  `run_platform.sh --check-only` exit 0.
+
+### Phase P6 — final-review-ship (Final Phase, complete, tag v1.21.6)
+- Multi-persona code review: PASS with 3 P1 flags (all fixed in this
+  phase): source .md/talking-points re-synced to 20 slides, `![h:480
+  class:tall]` directives applied, README stale references updated.
+- Audit: git log matches `.ciagent/` discipline; all commits have
+  `---ci---` blocks; branch hygiene verified.
+- Ship: tag `v1.21.6` (final patch = milestone release). Merge
+  `milestone/v1.22-deck-layout-fix` → `main`. Requirements marked
+  complete; ROADMAP marked complete; CHECKPOINT cleared.
+- **Requirements:** REQ-254..262 (9 requirements, all complete).

.ciagent/uat/prereq.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+=== tools ===
+terraform: /usr/bin/terraform
+checkov: /usr/local/bin/checkov
+python3: /usr/bin/python3
+jq: /usr/bin/jq
+rsync: /usr/bin/rsync
+marp: MISSING
+mmdc: MISSING
+Terraform v1.9.8
+3.3.8
+Python 3.12.3
+=== chrome/chromium (for slide render) ===
+found: /root/.cache/ms-playwright/chromium-1217/chrome-linux64/chrome
+=== creds ===
+.env.secrets: present (4 lines)
+.env: present
+=== aws creds loadable? ===
+NOVA_AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID: set
+AWS_DEFAULT_REGION: us-east-1
+=== git ===
+main
+v1.18.1-11-gaa868c9
+=== disk ===
+/dev/loop2      148G  140G  1.3G 100% /

.ciagent/uat/v1.20-uat-report.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+{"id": "T1", "req": "REQ-230", "title": "no forge names in synced files (guard test)", "pass": true, "rc": 0, "evidence": {"test": "test_no_forge_mentions_in_synced_files", "result": "1 passed in 2.20s", "log_tail": ["tests/test_no_forge_mentions.py::test_no_forge_mentions_in_synced_files PASSED [100%]", "1 passed in 2.20s"]}}
+{"id": "T2", "req": "REQ-230", "title": "forge-detection code genericized", "pass": true, "rc": 0, "evidence": {"hardcoded_gitea_gitlab_hits": 0, "genericization_signals": ["contract_ingestor.py: _forge_type() returns 'generic_forge'", "hitl_gates.py: GITHUB_ACTOR or FORGE_ACTOR (no GITEA_ACTOR)", "run_platform.sh:166: GITHUB_ACTOR:-FORGE_ACTOR fallback"]}}
+{"id": "T3", "req": "REQ-231", "title": "synced docs stripped of internal provenance", "pass": false, "rc": 1, "evidence": {"provenance_hit_count": 40, "contaminated_files": ["docs/ONBOARDING.md (REQ-182,183,184; D-113,114,119)", "docs/METRICS.md (REQ-191,192,193,194,211,212; D-083,096,113,114,119)", "docs/presentations/README.md (REQ-214,226,228; D-130,141; .ciagent/PROJECT.md)", "docs/presentations/nova-no-humans-platform.{md,marp.md,html,talking-points.md} (v1.X milestone headers)", "docs/presentations/assets/mmd/developer-experience-08-semver.mmd (v1.12 header)"], "root_cause": "test_no_forge_mentions.py only guards forge names, not provenance IDs", "defect": "F7"}}
+{"id": "T4", "req": "REQ-232", "title": "migration docs removed + thesis moved", "pass": true, "rc": 0, "evidence": {"docs_NOVA_MIGRATION_gone": true, "docs_NOVA_AWS_MIGRATION_gone": true, "docs_NO_HUMANS_THESIS_gone": true, "ciagent_NO_HUMANS_THESIS_present": true}}
+{"id": "T5", "req": "REQ-239", "title": "S&P theme CSS palette on all chrome", "pass": true, "rc": 0, "evidence": {"css_exists": true, "css_size_bytes": 2914, "red_present": true, "black_present": true, "white_present": true, "chrome_covered": ["section/bg", "section.title", "h1-h3 headings", "table th", "blockquote", "pre/code", "header", "footer", "pagination (.bespoke-progress-bar)", "strong"]}}
+{"id": "T6", "req": "REQ-240", "title": "render pipeline script + mermaid theme", "pass": true, "rc": 0, "evidence": {"render_slides_executable": true, "render_slides_size": 2736, "sp_theme_json_has_red": true, "sp_theme_json_has_black": true, "render_deck_sh_still_present": true, "render_deck_excluded_from_sync": true, "caveat": "README:107 still references render_deck.sh (deferred to T9)"}}
+{"id": "T7", "req": "REQ-241", "title": "slides CI workflow path trigger", "pass": false, "rc": 1, "evidence": {"wrong_path_hits": [".github/workflows/slides.yml:8: - 'assets/nova-sp-theme.css' (non-existent)", "workflows-src/slides.yml:8: - 'assets/nova-sp-theme.css' (non-existent)"], "correct_path": "docs/presentations/assets/nova-sp-theme.css", "src_dotgithub_identical": true, "defect": "F6", "impact": "Explicit CSS path trigger points at nothing; only the docs/presentations/** glob catches CSS edits. Dead entry should be corrected or removed."}}
+{"id": "T8", "req": "REQ-242", "title": "slide-pipeline guard test", "pass": true, "rc": 0, "evidence": {"passed": 12, "failed": 0, "duration_s": 1.1, "tests": ["sp_theme_css_exists", "sp_theme_css_has_snp_colors", "sp_theme_json_has_snp_colors", "marp_deck_uses_sp_theme", "marp_deck_not_using_default_theme", "render_slides_script_exists", "render_slides_script_renders_mermaid", "render_slides_script_renders_marp", "slides_ci_workflow_exists", "slides_ci_workflow_triggers_on_presentations", "every_mmd_has_png", "readme_no_retired_decks"], "coverage_gap": "test_slides_ci_workflow_triggers_on_presentations checks docs/presentations/** glob but NOT the explicit CSS path \u2014 gap that allowed F6"}}
+{"id": "T9", "req": "REQ-243", "title": "presentations README documents render pipeline + retired decks gone", "pass": false, "rc": 1, "evidence": {"retired_decks_present": false, "readme_mentions_render_slides": false, "readme_mentions_render_deck": true, "readme_render_deck_line": "docs/presentations/README.md:107: 'automated by scripts/render_deck.sh'", "readme_mentions_theme_css": true, "defect": "F10", "impact": "README documents the retired render_deck.sh pipeline, not the active render_slides.sh. Consumers reading synced README reference a script excluded from sync."}}
+{"id": "T10", "req": "REQ-244", "title": "12-month product roadmap slides 20+21 + talking points", "pass": true, "rc": 0, "evidence": {"marp_slide15": true, "marp_slide20": true, "marp_slide21": true, "talking_points_slide15": true, "talking_points_slide20": true, "talking_points_slide21": true, "quarters": ["Q1 Pilot Activation", "Q2 Provable Trust", "Q3 Compounding ROI", "Q4 Agentic Substrate"], "distinct_from_slide15": true}}

docs/presentations/README.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ every deck and a presenter-ready cue sheet for delivery.
 
 ```
 Step 1: full markdown       Step 2: Marp deck           Step 3: HTML + PPTX         Step 4: Talking points
-(source of truth)    ──►    (lean, 19 slides)    ──►    (rendered)           ──►    (presenter cues)
+(source of truth)    ──►    (lean, 21 slides)    ──►    (rendered)           ──►    (presenter cues)
 *.md                        *-marp.md                   *.html / *.pptx             *-talking-points.md
 + speaker notes             + embedded PNG diagrams                                 + 3-6 bullets per slide
 + mermaid code blocks       + Marp frontmatter                                     + key takeaway per slide
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ Distill the source of truth (Step 1) into presenter-ready cues, indexed by
 the Marp deck (Step 2) slide structure:
 
 - **One section per Marp slide** — `## Slide N — Title`, matching the Marp
-  deck's 18 main + 1 appendix slide structure exactly.
+  deck's 20 main + 1 appendix slide structure exactly.
 - **3-6 talking point bullets per slide** — punchy, actionable cues distilled
   from the source markdown's speaker notes.
 - **Key takeaway per slide** — the one memorable thing the audience should
@@ -108,8 +108,8 @@ the Marp deck (Step 2) slide structure:
 ```
 docs/presentations/
 ├── README.md                                  ← this file
-├── nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md                 ← Step 1: full source of truth (18 main slides + speaker notes)
+├── nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md                 ← Step 1: full source of truth (20 main slides + speaker notes)
-├── nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md            ← Step 2: Marp deck (18 main + 1 appendix = 19 slides)
+├── nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md            ← Step 2: Marp deck (20 main + 1 appendix = 21 slides)
 ├── nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.html               ← Step 3: rendered HTML (committed, S&P-themed)
 ├── nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.pptx               ← Step 3: rendered PPTX (committed, S&P-themed)
 ├── nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-talking-points.md  ← Step 4: presenter cues (19 sections)
@@ -126,10 +126,11 @@ docs/presentations/
 
 ### Appendix structure
 
-Each Marp deck has **18 main slides + 1 appendix slide**. The main 18 are the
+Each Marp deck has **20 main slides + 1 appendix slide**. The main 20 are the
-presentation; the appendix is for Q&A backup.
+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.
@@ -235,7 +236,7 @@ attached to the phase's release.
 
 | Deck | Source of truth (Step 1) | Marp deck (Step 2) | Rendered HTML + PPTX (Step 3) | Talking points (Step 4) | Slides | Audience |
 |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-| Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform | `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md` | `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md` | `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.html` + `.pptx` (committed + release-attached) | `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-talking-points.md` | 18 main + 1 appendix (19) | CTO, Head of Cloud, Head of Infra, Head of DevOps |
+| Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform | `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md` | `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md` | `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.html` + `.pptx` (committed + release-attached) | `nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-talking-points.md` | 20 main + 1 appendix (21) | CTO, Head of Cloud, Head of Infra, Head of DevOps |
 
 > **v1.21:** the deck was renamed from "No-Humans Infrastructure Platform"
 > to "Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform" (professional framing; conveys

docs/presentations/assets/nova-sp-theme.css

@@ -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; }
+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: 6px 10px; }
+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); }
@@ -128,4 +128,4 @@ strong { color: var(--sp-red); }
  * we clamp to `hidden` so the exported slide is clean. */
 @media print {
   section { overflow: hidden; }
-}
+}

docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-marp.md

@@ -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.**
 
@@ -98,22 +102,21 @@ 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.**
 
-![h:480](assets/png/platform-pipeline.png)
+![h:480 class:tall](assets/png/platform-pipeline.png)
 
 - **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. |
@@ -148,36 +162,34 @@ 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.**
 
-![h:480](assets/png/telemetry-live-ops.png)
+![h:480 class:tall](assets/png/telemetry-live-ops.png)
 
 - **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) |
+| 1 | Live infra health, outbox write rate, SLA | Live AWS re-provisioning (currently torn down to zero-cost steady state) |
-| 2 | Live outbox write rate | Live AWS re-provisioning |
+| 2 | Tamper-evident ledger checkpoints | Audit-ledger build-out (Object Lock + signed checkpoints) |
-| 3 | Tamper-evident ledger checkpoints | Audit-ledger build-out (Object Lock + signed checkpoints) |
+| 3 | Onboarding funnel (requested → granted) | Auto-grant implementation |
-| 4 | Onboarding funnel (requested → granted) | Auto-grant implementation |
+| 4 | Drift auto-reversal | Drift-detection scheduler (not yet built) |
-| 5 | Drift auto-reversal | Drift-detection scheduler (not yet built) |
+| 5 | Live cost reconciliation | Live AWS re-provisioning + actual-spend feed |
-| 6 | Live cost reconciliation | Live AWS re-provisioning + actual-spend feed |
+| 6 | Predictive vs reactive ratio | ML anomaly-forecasting service (not yet built) |
-| 7 | SLA / unplanned downtime | Live AWS re-provisioning |
-| 8 | 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 |
+| 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% | Objective #1 — autonomy as the default |
+| **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% | Objective #2 — trust is the moat |
+| **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% | Objective #3 — CFO-pointable numbers |
+| **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) | Objective #4 — default substrate for agents |
+| **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.**
 

docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery-talking-points.md

@@ -21,104 +21,120 @@
 - State the attestation model up front: QA for production, SRE for operational readiness
 - **Key takeaway:** autonomous operations with provable trust — security, remediation velocity, reliability, lead time made visible, not promised
 
-### Slide 3 — Strategic Objectives + Anti-Goals
+### Slide 3 — Strategic Objectives
+- Objective #1: zero-touch operations — autonomy as the default, not the demo; stage-gate attestation (QA, SRE) remains human by design
 - Objective #2 is the one to land carefully: trust = deterministic scoring, not an LLM; the platform functions without AI
 - Objective #3: four CTO-grade metrics (Lead Time, Vuln Count, MTTR, Spend) — all flow into PowerBI
 - Objective #4 is the integration thesis: Nova integrates with any upstream source; provides skills + MCP; all prod intents go through the same controls
-- Anti-goals #3 and #4 protect the scope: not an upstream dev platform, not a PDLC replacement
+- **Key takeaway:** the scope is explicit — Nova governs infra + delivery, integrates with any source through one contract, measures success on four CTO metrics
-- **Key takeaway:** purpose-built for infra ops, integrates with any source through one contract, measures success on four CTO metrics
 
-### Slide 4 — Scope: Downstream of PDLC
+### Slide 4 — Anti-Goals (What Nova Is NOT)
+- Not a general-purpose AI agent platform
+- Not a system that removes humans from accountability — only from normal operations
+- Not an upstream development platform (no product backlogs, IDE, code authorship)
+- Not a replacement for the Product Development Lifecycle (PDLC)
+- Anti-goals #3 and #4 protect the scope boundary — Nova will not become an IDE or a product-planning tool
+- **Key takeaway:** the boundaries are explicit — Nova is purpose-built for infra ops + delivery, not a general-purpose AI agent or an upstream dev platform
+
+### Slide 5 — Scope: Downstream of PDLC
 - Nova governs infra + delivery only; the PDLC (backlog, code authorship, IDE) is upstream — Nova never penetrates it
 - Integration is only through the validated contract boundary
 - Any upstream source (AI agent, agentic SDLC, dev platform) produces submissions subject to the same compliance standards
 - Nova validates the submission, not the author
 - **Key takeaway:** Nova is purpose-built for infrastructure operations; the scope boundary is clean and bounded
 
-### Slide 5 — RACI: Who Owns What
+### Slide 6 — RACI: Who Owns What
 - Four roles now: Citizen Developer, Platform, Quality Engineering, SRE
 - Quality attestation is owned by Quality Engineering (not the Platform); 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
 - Production readiness is co-owned: the platform runs attestations; the citizen developer authorizes the promotion at the stage gate
 - **Key takeaway:** you bring FRs + UAT; Nova provides NFRs + infra; QE guards the gate evidence; SRE signs off on production readiness
 
-### Slide 6 — The Platform Pipeline
+### Slide 7 — The Platform Pipeline
 - Walk the pipeline left-to-right: contract → resolver → adapter → Checkov (static) → plan → Wiz (on plan) → confidence → gate → apply
 - Two-stage scan: Checkov on static code BEFORE the plan (fail-fast dev feedback); Wiz on the plan (or Checkov as drop-in if no Wiz creds)
 - Never both Wiz + Checkov on the plan — avoid duplicate noise
 - Dev is autonomous; qa/prod/dr require attestation (QA for quality, SRE for production readiness)
 - **Key takeaway:** two layers of scanning, zero operator involvement in normal operations
 
-### Slide 7 — The Decision Ledger
+### Slide 8 — The Decision Ledger
 - "AI decisions" are really automated decisions — deterministic scripts calculate a score; the platform functions without AI
 - Do not dwell on the storage substrate — the value is accountability (immutable, queryable, traceable to outcome), not the database
 - Every stage-gate attestation is captured with approver identity and the evidence presented
 - When an LLM planner is added later, it emits richer alternatives without breaking the schema
 - **Key takeaway:** autonomous is defensible because every decision is immutable, queryable, accountable — and "automated" means deterministic scoring, not a black-box LLM
 
-### Slide 8 — The Attestation Matrix
+### Slide 9 — Attestation Matrix: QA
-- The matrix is not a rubber stamp — structured, freshness-validated, separation-of-duties-enforced
+- The matrix is not a rubber stamp — structured, freshness-validated
 - Each concern now has a plain-language description of what is being attested (the old "operator-supplied" label is gone)
-- SoD on prod: the approver can't be the same person who built it
+- Three QA concerns: functional correctness (24h), performance baseline (7d), security posture (24h)
+- Each concern has a freshness window — evidence older than the window does not satisfy the gate
+- **Key takeaway:** QA signs off on quality before any promotion — the gate is explicit, not implicit
+
+### Slide 10 — Attestation Matrix: Prod/DR
+- Seven prod/DR concerns: operational readiness, incident response, capacity & cost, DR drill, chaos, backup, DR region deploy
+- SRE signs off on operability (runbooks, dashboards, on-call), incident response, capacity, and the three resilience checks
+- Each concern has a freshness window — 30d/90d/180d depending on the control
+- SoD on prod: the approver can't be the same person who built it — the rule that keeps the gate honest
 - **Key takeaway:** autonomy in operations, human in accountability, by design — the matrix is what makes autonomous operations safe enough to trust in production
 
-### Slide 9 — Telemetry & Live Ops
+### Slide 11 — Telemetry & Live Ops
 - Deliberately minimal: Nova-native CloudEvents; no Kafka/Prometheus/ClickHouse
 - The live-ops dashboard is built in PowerBI on top of the exported views — leadership sees the same numbers the platform produces
 - Every number in the Proof slides is traceable to a signal — "where does this number come from?" → a query against the cold store
 - This is where the "infrastructure operations become visible" theme lands concretely
 - **Key takeaway:** the architecture is the trust substrate — operations become visible in PowerBI, with full traceability
 
-### Slide 10 — Decision Ledger + Attestation Coverage
+### Slide 12 — Decision Ledger + Attestation Coverage
 - Both 100% — no automated decision is ever lost; no prod/dr promotion lands without a human sign-off
 - The mandatory-by-design point: the ledger entry + the human attestation are a gate, not a best-effort feature
 - Easily queried: by run, by environment, by approver, by outcome — the audit trail is a query, not a forensic exercise
 - **Key takeaway:** trust is provable — not a marketing claim, a queryable record; no change to production without both the ledger entry and the human attestation
 
-### Slide 11 — Cost & ROI
+### Slide 13 — Cost & ROI
 - The ROI formula is shown inline — not hidden in a footnote
 - The four CTO-grade metrics are the ROI proof — Lead Time, Vuln Count, MTTR, Cloud Spend
 - The N=0 caveat is stated explicitly: the formula is grounded; the production numbers activate with a pilot
 - **Key takeaway:** the ROI is not a black box — the formula is shown, the four metrics are committed, the production-denominator caveat is up front
 
-### Slide 12 — What's Deferred — and Why
+### Slide 14 — What's Deferred — and Why
 - The preempt is critical: these deferrals are measurement infrastructure, not autonomy — the platform IS autonomous in operations
 - The blocking work is named in plain language (no decision IDs) — "live AWS re-provisioning", "drift-detection scheduler", "ML service"
 - Showing this to leadership demonstrates honesty, not weakness
 - **Key takeaway:** 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
 - Each deferred metric has an unblock path and a timeframe — near-term, mid-term, longer-term
 - No status column: most of it is not implemented yet, so status would be noise
 - Re-evaluation triggers: each blocking piece of work lifts on its own schedule
 - **Key takeaway:** every deferred metric has a plan and a timeframe — nothing is hand-waved
 
-### Slide 14 — 12-Month Product Roadmap
+### Slide 16 — 12-Month Product Roadmap
 - This is the *product* roadmap, forward-looking only
 - Q1 Pilot Activation → Q2 Provable Trust → Q3 Compounding ROI → Q4 Integration & Predictive
 - Each quarter activates one strategic objective from the North Star
 - **Key takeaway:** the 12-month product arc — each quarter activates a strategic objective and its board-level metric
 
-### Slide 15 — Quarter-by-Quarter Outcomes
+### Slide 17 — Quarter-by-Quarter Outcomes
 - Q1: three post-pilot metrics go live (Touchless ≥99%, Escalation <0.1%, Accuracy ≥99.5%) — denominator activates with the pilot
 - Q2: Decision Ledger Coverage was already grounded — tamper-evidence is the Q2 upgrade (local hash-chain → Object Lock + signed checkpoints)
 - Q3: Drift Auto-Reversal ≥95% unblocks when the drift scheduler ships; Spend Reduction ≥25% measured against the pilot baseline
 - Q4: Predictive:Reactive ≥3:1 requires the ML forecasting service; AI-Agent Intent Share is a first measurement (aspirational-metric)
 - **Key takeaway:** each quarter has a concrete deliverable, a target metric grounded in a strategic objective, and a path from deferred to shipped
 
-### 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 via skills (markdown, keyed to engineering domains) + an MCP server (4 tools, plugin-registry, stdio)
 - The integration point is the same regardless of source — AI agent, agentic SDLC, traditional IDE all get the same skills + MCP
 - This is how Nova makes the citizen developer production-grade without owning the PDLC
 - **Key takeaway:** the citizen developer's AI agent is not unguided — Nova provides engineering principles as skills + MCP
 
-### Slide 17 — Production-Grade Guidance via Atelier (2/2)
+### Slide 19 — Production-Grade Guidance via Atelier (2/2)
 - The value is the gap deterministic scanners leave: engineering discipline (Wiz/Checkmarx/Mend check policy/secrets, not discipline)
 - The MCP server catches "is this service observable?", "is this error path handled?", "is this API contract clear?"
 - Vendored at a pinned tag → audit reproducibility — a validation result is replayable months later
 - **Key takeaway:** submissions are checked for engineering discipline, not just policy compliance — and the check is reproducible for audit
 
-### Slide 18 — Recap + Ask
+### Slide 20 — Recap + Ask
 - 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

docs/presentations/nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.md

@@ -98,10 +98,7 @@ operations.**
 
 ---
 
-## Slide 3 — Strategic Objectives + Anti-Goals
+## Slide 3 — Strategic Objectives
-
-**Four objectives Nova is building toward; four anti-goals that keep it
-focused.**
 
 **4 Strategic Objectives:**
 1. **Demonstrate production-grade zero-touch operations** — autonomy as
@@ -128,7 +125,21 @@ focused.**
    to deploy to production go through the same rigorous controls,
    quality gates, attestation, and evidence stream.
 
-**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.
+
+> **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."
+
+---
+
+## 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.
@@ -136,13 +147,11 @@ focused.**
    authorship).
 4. Not a replacement for the Product Development Lifecycle (PDLC).
 
-> **Benefit:** the scope is explicit — Nova governs infrastructure and
+> **Benefit:** the boundaries are explicit — Nova is purpose-built for
-> delivery, integrates with any upstream source through one validated
+> infrastructure operations and delivery, not a general-purpose AI agent
-> contract, and measures success on four metrics a CTO can repeat back.
+> or an upstream development platform.
 
-> **Speaker notes:** Objective #2 is the one to land carefully: trust is
+> **Speaker notes:** Anti-goals #3 and #4 protect the scope boundary —
-> established by deterministic scoring, not by an LLM. The platform
-> functions without AI. 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
@@ -150,7 +159,7 @@ focused.**
 
 ---
 
-## 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.**
@@ -183,7 +192,7 @@ never penetrates it. Integration is through one validated contract.**
 
 ---
 
-## Slide 5 — RACI: Who Owns What
+## Slide 6 — RACI: Who Owns What
 
 **Four roles, one matrix — the citizen developer owns FRs + UAT, the
 platform owns NFRs + infra, quality engineering owns the gate evidence,
@@ -224,7 +233,7 @@ and SRE owns operational readiness.**
 
 ---
 
-## Slide 6 — The Platform Pipeline
+## Slide 7 — The Platform Pipeline
 
 **How intent becomes verified infrastructure — with fail-fast policy
 scanning before the plan and runtime scanning after it.**
@@ -272,7 +281,7 @@ graph LR
 
 ---
 
-## Slide 7 — The Decision Ledger
+## Slide 8 — The Decision Ledger
 
 **Every automated decision is captured, immutable, queryable — and
 accountable.**
@@ -310,16 +319,42 @@ accountable.**
 
 ---
 
-## Slide 8 — The Attestation Matrix
+## Slide 9 — Attestation Matrix: QA
 
-**The designed controls that keep humans at stage gates — structured,
+**The designed controls that keep humans at stage gates — QA concerns,
-freshness-validated, and separation-of-duties-enforced.**
+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. |
+
+- Each concern has a freshness window — evidence older than the window
+  does not satisfy the gate.
+- Concerns that are offline-testable run for real; concerns that require
+  external evidence accept signed artifacts.
+
+> **Benefit:** QA signs off on quality before any promotion — the gate
+> is explicit, not implicit.
+
+> **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."
+
+---
+
+## 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 coverage. |
 | Incident response | prod | 90d | The on-call path has been exercised; the deployment has a working incident-response plan. |
 | Capacity & cost | prod | 30d | Capacity headroom and monthly cost are within the agreed envelope. |
@@ -332,17 +367,16 @@ freshness-validated, and separation-of-duties-enforced.**
   does not satisfy the gate.
 - **Separation-of-duties on prod:** the approver cannot be the same
   person who built the deployment.
-- Concerns that are offline-testable run for real; concerns that require
-  external evidence accept signed artifacts.
 
 > **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.
 
-> **Speaker notes:** The matrix is not a rubber stamp. Each concern has a
+> **Speaker notes:** The prod/DR rows are the operational-readiness and
-> freshness window, a description, and a separation-of-duties rule. The
+> resilience gates — SRE signs off on operability, incident response,
-> "operator-supplied" label from the prior deck was dropped — every
+> capacity, and the three resilience checks (DR drill, chaos, backup).
-> concern now has a plain-language description of what is being attested.
+> 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
@@ -350,7 +384,7 @@ freshness-validated, and separation-of-duties-enforced.**
 
 ---
 
-## Slide 9 — Telemetry & Live Ops
+## Slide 11 — Telemetry & Live Ops
 
 **Every metric in this deck is traceable to a real emitted signal — and
 the live-ops dashboard makes operations visible in PowerBI.**
@@ -399,7 +433,7 @@ graph TB
 
 ---
 
-## 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
@@ -435,7 +469,7 @@ traceability.**
 
 ---
 
-## Slide 11 — Cost & ROI
+## Slide 13 — Cost & ROI
 
 **The ROI formula and the cost estimates — grounded, with the production
 denominator honestly flagged.**
@@ -466,7 +500,7 @@ denominator honestly flagged.**
 
 ---
 
-## 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.**
@@ -502,7 +536,7 @@ metrics — not the autonomy.
 
 ---
 
-## 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 candidate milestone.**
@@ -533,7 +567,7 @@ deferred metric has an unblock path and a candidate milestone.**
 
 ---
 
-## Slide 14 — 12-Month Product Roadmap
+## Slide 16 — 12-Month Product Roadmap
 
 **The product arc from pilot activation to integration — four quarters,
 four outcomes.**
@@ -560,7 +594,7 @@ integration) and the deferred-metric unblock paths.
 
 ---
 
-## Slide 15 — Quarter-by-Quarter Outcomes
+## Slide 17 — Quarter-by-Quarter Outcomes
 
 | Quarter | Product theme | Key deliverable | Target metric | Grounding |
 |---------|---------------|-----------------|---------------|-----------|
@@ -587,7 +621,7 @@ anymore, and the audit trail is stronger than it ever was.'"*
 
 ---
 
-## 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.**
@@ -621,7 +655,7 @@ engineering — a set of skills and an MCP server.**
 
 ---
 
-## 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.**
@@ -656,7 +690,7 @@ scanners miss — and the validation is reproducible.**
 
 ---
 
-## Slide 18 — Recap + Ask
+## Slide 20 — Recap + Ask
 
 **The 4-beat recap + the business decision.**
 
@@ -710,4 +744,4 @@ S3 Object Lock + signed checkpoints. These two decisions move Nova from
 
 ---
 
-> **End of deck.** 18 main slides + 1 appendix slide = 19 total.
+> **End of deck.** 20 main slides + 1 appendix slide = 21 total.

tests/test_slides_pipeline.py

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ v1.21 adds (REQ-245,251,252):
   - Deck renamed to nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery*
   - No maturity badges in the Marp deck
   - No version in the Marp footer/title slide
-  - 18 main + 1 appendix slides
+  - 20 main + 1 appendix slides (v1.22 split slides 3+8 to relieve overflow)
   - No D-###/REQ-###/internal .py paths in audience-facing slides
   - Title is "Nova — The Autonomous Cloud Delivery Platform"
 """
@@ -202,7 +202,9 @@ def test_marp_deck_title_is_autonomous_cloud_delivery():
 
 
 def test_marp_deck_slide_count():
-    """REQ-245: 18 main slides + 1 appendix = 19 slides total."""
+    """REQ-245/261: 20 main slides + 1 appendix = 21 slides total.
+    v1.22 split slides 3 (Objectives+Anti-Goals) and 8 (Attestation
+    Matrix) to relieve overflow, increasing the count from 18 to 20."""
     text = MARP_DECK.read_text()
     # Count slide separators: each slide ends with --- (except the last)
     # The frontmatter is one --- ... --- block, then each slide is separated by ---
@@ -210,8 +212,8 @@ def test_marp_deck_slide_count():
     slide_headings = re.findall(r"^## (?:Slide|Appendix) ", text, re.MULTILINE)
     main_slides = re.findall(r"^## Slide ", text, re.MULTILINE)
     appendix_slides = re.findall(r"^## Appendix ", text, re.MULTILINE)
-    assert len(main_slides) == 18, \
+    assert len(main_slides) == 20, \
-        f"expected 18 main slides, found {len(main_slides)}: {slide_headings}"
+        f"expected 20 main slides, found {len(main_slides)}: {slide_headings}"
     assert len(appendix_slides) == 1, \
         f"expected 1 appendix slide, found {len(appendix_slides)}"
 
@@ -265,4 +267,107 @@ def test_source_md_no_badges():
     """REQ-252: no maturity badges in the source-of-truth markdown."""
     text = SOURCE_MD.read_text()
     assert "badge" not in text.lower(), \
-        "Source markdown still contains badge spans"
+        "Source markdown still contains badge spans"
+
+
+# --- v1.22 layout/aspect-ratio/theme-structural tests (REQ-262) ---
+
+def test_theme_css_has_section_padding():
+    """REQ-254: theme CSS has a section padding rule (root cause fix)."""
+    css = THEME_CSS.read_text()
+    assert "padding:" in css, "theme CSS has no padding rule"
+    # The section rule must have padding (not just table/td padding)
+    assert re.search(r"section\s*\{[^}]*padding:", css, re.DOTALL), \
+        "theme CSS has no padding on the section rule"
+
+
+def test_theme_css_suppresses_title_chrome():
+    """REQ-256: title slides suppress header/footer chrome."""
+    css = THEME_CSS.read_text()
+    assert "section.title header" in css, \
+        "theme CSS does not suppress title-slide header"
+    assert "section.title footer" in css, \
+        "theme CSS does not suppress title-slide footer"
+    assert "display: none" in css, \
+        "theme CSS does not set display:none on title chrome"
+
+
+def test_theme_css_has_aspect_ratio_aware_images():
+    """REQ-255: image rules use object-fit + max-width (not blunt max-height only)."""
+    css = THEME_CSS.read_text()
+    assert "object-fit" in css, \
+        "theme CSS does not use object-fit for images"
+    assert "max-width" in css, \
+        "theme CSS does not set max-width for images"
+
+
+def test_png_aspect_ratios_sane():
+    """REQ-259/260: PNGs referenced in the marp deck have aspect ratios
+    in [0.4, 4.0] (suitable for 16:9 slides with img.tall/img.wide classes).
+    Only checks PNGs actually referenced in the current marp deck —
+    legacy/unused PNGs are not checked (GRILL revision 1)."""
+    import struct
+    deck_text = MARP_DECK.read_text()
+    # Extract all referenced PNG paths: ![...](assets/png/X.png)
+    referenced = re.findall(r'!\[[^\]]*\]\(assets/png/([^)]+\.png)\)', deck_text)
+    assert referenced, "no PNGs referenced in the marp deck"
+    for png_name in referenced:
+        png_path = ASSETS / "png" / png_name
+        assert png_path.is_file(), f"referenced PNG not found: {png_name}"
+        with open(png_path, "rb") as fh:
+            data = fh.read(24)
+        assert data[:8] == b"\x89PNG\r\n\x1a\n", f"{png_name} is not a PNG"
+        w = struct.unpack(">I", data[16:20])[0]
+        h = struct.unpack(">I", data[20:24])[0]
+        ar = w / h
+        assert 0.4 <= ar <= 4.0, \
+            f"{png_name} aspect ratio {ar:.2f} outside [0.4, 4.0] ({w}x{h})"
+
+
+def test_render_slides_has_2x_scale():
+    """REQ-258: render_slides.sh uses -s 2 (2x scale) and -b transparent."""
+    text = RENDER_SCRIPT.read_text()
+    assert "-s 2" in text, "render_slides.sh does not use -s 2 (2x scale)"
+    assert "-b transparent" in text, \
+        "render_slides.sh does not use -b transparent"
+
+
+def test_render_slides_pins_cli_versions():
+    """REQ-257: render_slides.sh pins marp-cli and mermaid-cli versions
+    (no @latest)."""
+    text = RENDER_SCRIPT.read_text()
+    assert "marp-cli@" in text, "render_slides.sh does not pin marp-cli"
+    assert "mermaid-cli@" in text, \
+        "render_slides.sh does not pin mermaid-cli"
+    assert "@latest" not in text, \
+        "render_slides.sh still uses @latest (not pinned)"
+
+
+def test_render_deck_removed():
+    """REQ-257: render_deck.sh has been deleted (produced unthemed output)."""
+    old_script = ROOT / "scripts" / "render_deck.sh"
+    assert not old_script.exists(), \
+        "render_deck.sh still exists (should be deleted — produced unthemed output)"
+
+
+def test_html_embeds_theme():
+    """REQ-262: the committed HTML embeds the S&P theme (--sp-red + padding
+    in the inline <style> block)."""
+    html = (PRESENTATIONS / "nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.html").read_text()
+    assert "--sp-red" in html, "committed HTML does not embed --sp-red"
+    assert "padding:" in html, "committed HTML does not embed padding rule"
+
+
+def test_html_slide_count_matches_marp():
+    """REQ-262: the committed HTML <section> count matches the marp deck
+    slide count (title + 20 main + 1 appendix = 22)."""
+    html = (PRESENTATIONS / "nova-autonomous-cloud-delivery.html").read_text()
+    section_count = html.count("<section ")
+    deck_text = MARP_DECK.read_text()
+    main_slides = len(re.findall(r"^## Slide ", deck_text, re.MULTILINE))
+    appendix_slides = len(re.findall(r"^## Appendix ", deck_text, re.MULTILINE))
+    # +1 for the title slide (which is an H1, not "## Slide")
+    expected = main_slides + appendix_slides + 1
+    assert section_count == expected, \
+        f"HTML has {section_count} sections, expected {expected} " \
+        f"({main_slides} main + {appendix_slides} appendix + 1 title)"