Compare commits
4 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
 Jon Chery
|
d199204367 | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
6a64b2b337 | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
9274b4b87f | ||
|
Jon Chery
|
25ddc894c2 |
@@ -1,12 +1,28 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"phase": 4,
|
||||
"phase": 6,
|
||||
"stage": "complete",
|
||||
"milestone": "v1.22",
|
||||
"phase_role": "execution",
|
||||
"phase_role": "final",
|
||||
"attempts": 0,
|
||||
"updated_at": "2026-08-11T15:00:00Z",
|
||||
"milestone_complete": false,
|
||||
"tag": "v1.21.4",
|
||||
"requirements": ["REQ-261"],
|
||||
"notes": "v1.22 P4 complete. Tag v1.21.4. 8 overflowing slides trimmed/split. Header removed from frontmatter. Slide count 18->20 main + 1 appendix. 23 slide tests pass. Proceeding to P5 (re-render + tests)."
|
||||
"updated_at": "2026-08-11T15:30:00Z",
|
||||
"milestone_complete": true,
|
||||
"tag": "v1.21.6",
|
||||
"requirements": ["REQ-254","REQ-255","REQ-256","REQ-257","REQ-258","REQ-259","REQ-260","REQ-261","REQ-262"],
|
||||
"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."
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -1895,12 +1895,12 @@ assert 20 main + 1 appendix.
|
||||
|
||||
| REQ | Phase | Status |
|
||||
|-----|-------|--------|
|
||||
| REQ-254 | P1 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-255 | P1 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-256 | P1 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-257 | P2 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-258 | P2 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-259 | P3 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-260 | P3 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-261 | P4 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-262 | P5 | pending |
|
||||
| REQ-254 | P1 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-255 | P1 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-256 | P1 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-257 | P2 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-258 | P2 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-259 | P3 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-260 | P3 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-261 | P4 | complete |
|
||||
| REQ-262 | P5 | complete |
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -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).
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -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% /
|
||||
@@ -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}}
|
||||
@@ -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-marp.md ← Step 2: Marp deck (18 main + 1 appendix = 19 slides)
|
||||
├── 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 (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)
|
||||
@@ -236,7 +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
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -128,4 +128,4 @@ strong { color: var(--sp-red); }
|
||||
* we clamp to `hidden` so the exported slide is clean. */
|
||||
@media print {
|
||||
section { overflow: hidden; }
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ Every hour a developer spends writing, deploying, fixing, or remediating infrast
|
||||
|
||||
**How intent becomes verified infrastructure — fail-fast policy scanning before the plan, runtime scanning after it.**
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
- **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
|
||||
@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ Separation-of-duties on prod: the approver cannot be the same person who built t
|
||||
|
||||
**Every metric in this deck is traceable to a real emitted signal — the live-ops dashboard makes operations visible in PowerBI.**
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
- **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)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -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:** purpose-built for infra ops, integrates with any source through one contract, measures success on four CTO metrics
|
||||
- **Key takeaway:** the scope is explicit — Nova governs infra + delivery, 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
|
||||
- The matrix is not a rubber stamp — structured, freshness-validated, separation-of-duties-enforced
|
||||
### Slide 9 — Attestation Matrix: QA
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
|
||||
File diff suppressed because one or more lines are too long
@@ -98,10 +98,7 @@ operations.**
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Slide 3 — Strategic Objectives + Anti-Goals
|
||||
|
||||
**Four objectives Nova is building toward; four anti-goals that keep it
|
||||
focused.**
|
||||
## Slide 3 — Strategic Objectives
|
||||
|
||||
**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
|
||||
> 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.
|
||||
|
||||
> **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. Anti-goals #3 and #4 protect the scope boundary —
|
||||
> **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
|
||||
@@ -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,
|
||||
freshness-validated, and 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. |
|
||||
|
||||
- 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
|
||||
> freshness window, a description, and a separation-of-duties rule. The
|
||||
> "operator-supplied" label from the prior deck was dropped — every
|
||||
> concern now has a plain-language description of what is being attested.
|
||||
> **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
|
||||
@@ -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.
|
||||
Binary file not shown.
@@ -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"
|
||||
"""
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user