acdl/.ciagent/GRILL.md

CIAgent Grill Report

Run: 2026-07-27 19:30 (mode: interactive, focus: all)

Verdict: Proceed with conditions (confidence: 0.72)

Two escalations must be resolved before the leadership pitch:

• G-005 (risks): 6 cloud capabilities (CAP-017..022) are deploy-unverified. RESOLVED (v1.11): CAP-017..022 are now Verified live-aws via the modules-lifecycle pipeline (apply/modify/destroy exit 0). The IAM-drift framing is removed. See CAPABILITY_INVENTORY.md.
• G-008 (budget): No cost documentation exists despite live AWS resources. RESOLVED (v1.11): COST.md now exists, documenting the v1.0→v1.10 spend window + the v1.11 cost projection. The v1.14 P19 phase extends the window to v1.11–v1.14.

The project is reclassified as an OSS reference implementation (G-003), not a sponsored product. The grill's sponsor/ROI/budget/timeline axes apply in weakened form; the adoption, architecture, and risks axes apply in full.

Axis 1 — Business Case

• Q1: What problem does this actually solve, and is that problem still the top priority?
  • Evidence: PROJECT.md:3-21 (vision + North Star); G-003 reframing (OSS reference)
  • Answer: ACDL is an OSS reference implementation showing the shape of an agentic cloud delivery platform. The problem (cognitive load of infra + operational work of safe change) is documented in docs/vision.md.
  • Confidence: 0.85
  • Decision: G-003 — reframe as OSS reference implementation; no sponsor/ROI required.
• Q2: Who is the named executive sponsor, and when did they last make a decision under pressure?
  • Evidence: MISSING (no named sponsor in any .ciagent/ file)
  • Answer: Not applicable for an OSS reference implementation (G-003). Senior leadership requesting the pitch is interest, not sponsorship.
  • Confidence: 0.85
  • Decision: G-003 (carries forward).
• Q3: What happens to the business if the project is cancelled?
  • Evidence: PROJECT.md:487 ("0 consumer adoption"); 10 milestones shipped with no consumers
  • Answer: If cancelled, no consumer loses a deployed system. The reference value (clonable shape) persists in the repo. Cancellation cost is low — consistent with OSS reference framing.
  • Confidence: 0.80
  • Decision: G-003 (carries forward).
• Q4: Is the ROI calculated against a counterfactual?
  • Evidence: MISSING (no ROI calculation anywhere)
  • Answer: Not applicable for an OSS reference implementation. The bar is "is it a credible, demonstrable reference?" not "is there a paying customer?"
  • Confidence: 0.85
  • Decision: G-003 (carries forward).

Axis 2 — Scope and Requirements

• Q1: Is the scope expanding, contracting, or genuinely stable?
  • Evidence: ROADMAP.md (v1.0→v1.10, 55 phases); v1.7 added uptime-kuma + decommission + RDS; v1.9.x added decks; v1.10 added regression-class VERIFY + local emulators
  • Answer: Expanding. The Out-of-Scope table (REQUIREMENTS.md:61-72) is scoped to v1.1 only; later milestones added scope without boundary updates.
  • Confidence: 0.70
  • Decision: G-010 — OSS scope is contributor-bounded; no out-of-scope table needed.
• Q2: Who owns the requirements, and have they been frozen?
  • Evidence: REQUIREMENTS.md (115 REQs, REQ-01..REQ-115); config.json autonomy=full
  • Answer: The user owns requirements via CLARIFY auto-resolution under full autonomy. Not frozen — each milestone adds REQs.
  • Confidence: 0.70
  • Decision: G-010 (carries forward).
• Q3: What is explicitly out of scope?
  • Evidence: REQUIREMENTS.md:61-72 (v1.1 Out-of-Scope table only); PROJECT.md:42-51 (Domain Boundaries)
  • Answer: Domain Boundaries section (PROJECT.md:42-51) defines durable out-of-scope: application business logic, IDE workflows, product backlog, node/OS-level compute. No per-milestone out-of-scope updates since v1.1.
  • Confidence: 0.65
  • Decision: G-010 — contributor-bounded scope accepted for OSS reference.
• Q4: Are there hidden requirements only disclosed late in delivery?
  • Evidence: v1.10 milestone (decay disclosure, PROJECT.md:59-67) — 7 adapter defects undisclosed across 8 phases
  • Answer: Yes — the v1.10 decay incident is a late-disclosed hidden requirement (reproducibility). D-091 regression gate is the mitigation.
  • Confidence: 0.72
  • Decision: G-007 (carries forward — milestone-level regression gate catches late-disclosed decay).

Axis 3 — Architecture and Technical Feasibility

• Q1: Has the proposed architecture been validated by the people who will build and operate it?
  • Evidence: PERSONAS.md (agent personas only); ARCHITECTURE.md (29KB); no human reviewer sign-off
  • Answer: Validated by the agent that built it, not by a downstream platform team. Acceptable for an OSS reference (G-002 — Platform Team joins post-clone).
  • Confidence: 0.72
  • Decision: G-002 (carries forward).
• Q2: What is the integration surface?
  • Evidence: ARCHITECTURE.md; adapters/ (terraform, wiz, kyverno, local emulators); contracts/ schema
  • Answer: Contract schema (upstream) + engine adapters (downstream). Integration is bounded by the IR + PolicyCheckResult schemas.
  • Confidence: 0.78
  • Decision: (resolved by existing architecture; no new binding decision)
• Q3: Is there an existing system being replaced?
  • Evidence: PROJECT.md:7-8 (vision: absorb cognitive load + operational work)
  • Answer: ACDL replaces manual platform engineering + ticket-driven delivery. No existing system in this repo; downstream teams replace their own.
  • Confidence: 0.75
  • Decision: (resolved by G-002 white-label framing)
• Q4: What is the technical debt being inherited, and is it budgeted for?
  • Evidence: v1.10 decay (7 adapter defects); D-091 regression gate at milestone completion (not per-phase)
  • Answer: Diff-scoped VERIFY debt was paid down in v1.10. Per-phase regression gap is accepted debt (G-007).
  • Confidence: 0.70
  • Decision: G-007 — milestone-level regression gate is correct; inter-milestone decay is an accepted trade-off.

Axis 4 — People, Skills, and Organization

• Q1: Which 2-3 people, if they left, would the project fail?
  • Evidence: PERSONAS.md (agent personas); all binding decisions made by the user (D-034, D-090, G-001..G-012)
  • Answer: One person — the user. Bus factor is 1.
  • Confidence: 0.82
  • Decision: G-011 — single-maintainer is normal for OSS reference; no action.
• Q2: Are the assigned resources actually allocated at the percentages claimed?
  • Evidence: config.json (autonomy=full, max_concurrent_agents=5)
  • Answer: The agent is the resource; allocation is 100% when invoked, 0% otherwise. No BAU fire-fighting claim to verify.
  • Confidence: 0.78
  • Decision: G-011 (carries forward).
• Q3: Is there a product owner with actual authority to prioritize?
  • Evidence: config.json (autonomy=full, decision_confidence_threshold=0.6)
  • Answer: The user is the product owner with absolute authority (full autonomy within user-locked constraints).
  • Confidence: 0.80
  • Decision: G-011 (carries forward).
• Q4: Is the team building capability they don't have?
  • Evidence: RESEARCH.md (101KB); local emulating adapters (Phase 53) — capability was built and proven
  • Answer: No — the agent built and verified the capability. Not a prototype-hoping-to-learn scenario.
  • Confidence: 0.78
  • Decision: (resolved by existing evidence)

Axis 5 — Timeline and Estimates

• Q1: Was the deadline set before or after the scope was understood?
  • Evidence: ROADMAP.md (v1.0 07-21 → v1.10 07-27, 6 days); no deadline documented anywhere
  • Answer: No deadline. Milestones complete when the agent finishes committing.
  • Confidence: 0.78
  • Decision: G-006 — autonomous OSS build has no deadline; cadence is fine.
• Q2: What is the project's critical path?
  • Evidence: MISSING (no critical path analysis)
  • Answer: Not applicable — no deadline means no critical path to push.
  • Confidence: 0.75
  • Decision: G-006 (carries forward).
• Q3: Are the estimates evidence-based?
  • Evidence: MISSING (no estimates; phases complete in agent-time)
  • Answer: No estimates. The cadence is a function of agent speed, not engineering sizing.
  • Confidence: 0.72
  • Decision: G-006 (carries forward — acceptable for autonomous OSS reference).
• Q4: Is there a working definition of done?
  • Evidence: VERIFY.md; AUDIT.md; 4-layer verify gate (structural, behavioral, security, quality)
  • Answer: Yes — the 4-layer verify gate + regression gate (D-091) is the definition of done. "Done" is not "whatever the latest demo shows"; it is a gated, audited state.
  • Confidence: 0.80
  • Decision: (resolved by existing verify gate)

Axis 6 — Budget and Financial Realism

• Q1: What percentage of the budget is already spent vs. remaining?
  • Evidence: MISSING (no budget file in .ciagent/)
  • Answer: Unresolved — no budget documented.
  • Confidence: 0.50
  • Decision: G-008 — ESCALATION.
• Q2: Are there predictable cost drivers not in the original budget?
  • Evidence: config.json escalation_hooks (deploy, delete_data); CAP-013..016 verified against live AWS account 581513795199
  • Answer: Yes — live AWS resources exist (S3 state, DynamoDB outbox, ECS, CloudFront). No cost driver documentation.
  • Confidence: 0.60
  • Decision: G-008 (carries forward — escalation).
• Q3: What's the burn rate, and how long until the money runs out?
  • Evidence: MISSING
  • Answer: Unresolved.
  • Confidence: 0.40
  • Decision: G-008 (carries forward — escalation).
• Q4: Is the budget contingent on something that hasn't happened yet?
  • Evidence: MISSING
  • Answer: Unresolved — likely contingent on the leadership pitch yielding a pilot platform team (G-001).
  • Confidence: 0.55
  • Decision: G-008 (carries forward — escalation).

Axis 7 — Risks, Assumptions, and Dependencies

• Q1: What are the top 3 assumptions the plan rests on?
  • Evidence: PROJECT.md:79-88 (CAP-017..022 IAM-gated); D-039 (OIDC federation deferred, blocked on go-gitea/gitea#36988); D-090 (no cap on re-verification sweep)
  • Answer: (1) Terraform plan path proves deployability. (2) Local emulators prove runtime behavior. (3) Gitea OIDC will eventually merge.
  • Confidence: 0.72
  • Decision: (resolved by G-005 escalation)
• Q2: What are you dependent on outside the team?
  • Evidence: PROJECT.md:79-88 (admin principal needed for IAM re-bootstrap); go-gitea/gitea#36988 (OIDC blocker)
  • Answer: An admin AWS principal (for CAP-017..022) and the Gitea OIDC PR (for D-039 waiver closure).
  • Confidence: 0.78
  • Decision: G-005 (carries forward — escalation).
• Q3: What is the single risk that, if it materializes, kills the project?
  • Evidence: CAPABILITY_INVENTORY.md §"Cloud capabilities NOT re-verified" (6 of 22 capabilities, 27%)
  • Answer: The unverifiable deploy path for CAP-017..022. If the terraform plan path does not translate to a real deploy, 27% of advertised capability is fictional.
  • Confidence: 0.80
  • Decision: G-005 — ESCALATION.
• Q4: Have you done a pre-mortem?
  • Evidence: MISSING (no pre-mortem document)
  • Answer: No pre-mortem on file. The v1.10 decay incident is the closest thing to a post-mortem.
  • Confidence: 0.65
  • Decision: (flagged; no binding decision — user accepted autonomous governance in G-009)

Axis 8 — Governance, Decision-Making, and Communication

• Q1: Who is the decision-maker when two executives disagree?
  • Evidence: config.json (autonomy=full); no human governance body documented
  • Answer: The user is the single decision-maker. No executive disagreement is possible because there is no executive body.
  • Confidence: 0.78
  • Decision: G-009 — autonomous CI is the governance.
• Q2: How often does governance meet, and what's the escalation pattern?
  • Evidence: config.json (escalation_hooks: deploy, delete_data, merge_to_main; escalation_timeout_ms: 300000)
  • Answer: Governance is event-driven (escalation hooks), not cadence-driven. 5-minute timeout.
  • Confidence: 0.72
  • Decision: G-009 (carries forward).
• Q3: What is being omitted from the status reports?
  • Evidence: v1.10 decay disclosure (PROJECT.md:59-67) — 8 phases omitted the decay from status
  • Answer: The v1.10 incident is direct evidence that status reports (decks) omitted material decay. D-094 (rewrite to verified reality) is the correction.
  • Confidence: 0.75
  • Decision: (resolved by D-094 + G-007 regression gate)
• Q4: Is there a "stop the project" trigger?
  • Evidence: MISSING (no stop-trigger documented)
  • Answer: No formal stop-trigger. The user is the single point of cancellation authority.
  • Confidence: 0.68
  • Decision: G-009 — autonomous CI is the governance; no human stop-trigger needed.

Axis 9 — Change, Adoption, and Operational Readiness

• Q1: Who will use this, and what is in it for them?
  • Evidence: PROJECT.md:487 ("0 consumer adoption"); G-001 (MVP for leadership pitch + pilot consumers)
  • Answer: Pilot platform teams (post-pitch) will clone, customize, and deploy for their internal consumers. The value to them is a working reference shape.
  • Confidence: 0.65
  • Decision: G-001 — feature-complete MVP for pitch + pilot consumers in parallel.
• Q2: Is the operations/support team involved now or being handed a finished product?
  • Evidence: MISSING (no Platform Team involvement in 55 phases); G-002 (white-label, out-of-repo)
  • Answer: Intentionally out-of-scope — ACDL is white-label; Platform Team customization happens outside this repo.
  • Confidence: 0.78
  • Decision: G-002 — white-label; Platform Team customization is out-of-repo.
• Q3: What is the rollback plan if it goes wrong?
  • Evidence: D-070 (decommission mode, 2-step pipeline with HITL SRE gates)
  • Answer: Decommission mode exists for deployed stacks. For the reference repo itself, rollback = git revert (no production state to roll back).
  • Confidence: 0.75
  • Decision: (resolved by existing D-070 decommission mode)
• Q4: Has anyone validated the success criteria with the people who will judge success?
  • Evidence: PROJECT.md (leadership pitch requested); no documented success-criteria validation with leadership
  • Answer: The leadership pitch IS the validation moment. Success criteria for an OSS reference = "leadership says this is a credible shape."
  • Confidence: 0.68
  • Decision: G-001 (carries forward — pitch is the validation).

Meta — Closing Review

• Q1: If you were the auditor, what would you flag?
  • Evidence: This grill run
  • Answer: (1) 6 unverifiable cloud capabilities (G-005). (2) No cost documentation (G-008). (3) Vision doc vs. OSS-reference framing tension (G-004 — resolved by keeping vision as target-state description).
  • Confidence: 0.78
  • Decision: (aggregated; G-005 + G-008 are the actionable flags)
• Q2: What is the project not doing that it should?
  • Evidence: MISSING (no pre-mortem, no cost doc, no Platform Team engagement, no stop-trigger)
  • Answer: Documenting the operating model (cost, deploy verification, governance) for a downstream team. The grill surfaced this across G-005, G-008, G-009.
  • Confidence: 0.75
  • Decision: (aggregated; G-005 + G-008 are the actionable items)
• Q3: What is the simplest possible version that could deliver 80% of the value?
  • Evidence: ROADMAP.md (v1.1 spike, Phase 10, REQ-27 — core E2E proven); v1.2-v1.10 (45 phases of expansion)
  • Answer: The v1.1 spike (contract → IR → terraform plan → Checkov → confidence → outbox) is the 80%-value version. The full 115-requirement build is accepted as the reference value (G-012).
  • Confidence: 0.68
  • Decision: G-012 — full catalog is the value; no minimal release needed.
• Q4: What would have to be true for this to succeed in the next 90 days, and is it true today?
  • Evidence: G-001 (pitch + pilot); G-005 (IAM re-bootstrap); G-008 (cost doc)
  • Answer: (1) Leadership pitch yields a pilot platform team — NOT TRUE today (pitch not yet delivered). (2) CAP-017..022 deploy path is verifiable — NOT TRUE today (G-005 escalation). (3) Cost operating model is documented — NOT TRUE today (G-008 escalation).
  • Confidence: 0.72
  • Decision: (aggregated; G-005 + G-008 + G-001 pitch are the 90-day conditions)

Binding Decisions

ID	Axis	Decision	Confidence
G-001	adoption	Feature-complete MVP for leadership pitch + pilot consumers in parallel; CIAgent builds, Platform Team deploys	0.65
G-002	adoption	ACDL is white-label; Platform Team customization is out-of-repo; resolves ops-handoff concern	0.78
G-003	business	Reframe as OSS reference implementation; no sponsor/ROI required	0.85
G-004	business	Keep production-deployment vision; reference describes target state	0.75
G-005	risks	ESCALATION — re-bootstrap IAM or mark CAP-017..022 deploy-unverified in decks	0.80
G-006	timeline	Autonomous OSS build has no deadline; cadence acceptable	0.72
G-007	architecture	Milestone-level regression gate is correct; system worked as designed	0.70
G-008	budget	ESCALATION — add COST.md or document zero-cloud-cost operating model	0.74
G-009	governance	Autonomous CI is the governance; no human stop-trigger needed	0.68
G-010	scope	OSS scope is contributor-bounded; no out-of-scope table needed	0.65
G-011	people	Single-maintainer is normal for OSS reference; no action	0.70
G-012	meta	Full catalog is the value; no minimal release needed	0.68

Escalations

• [G-005] risks — 6 cloud capabilities (CAP-017..022: DynamoDB contracts table, Lambda contract-ingestor, ECS service live, CloudFront production stack, uptime-kuma, OIDC role) are deploy-unverified. The acdl-spike-runner IAM user cannot fix its own IAM (chicken-and-egg). Either re-bootstrap IAM with an admin principal to re-verify, or explicitly mark these 6 as "design-verified, deploy-unverified" in every leadership deck before the pitch. Resolves: project-killing risk (Axis 7 Q3).
• [G-008] budget — No cost documentation exists in .ciagent/ despite live AWS resources (account 581513795199, CAP-013..016 verified). Either add a COST.md documenting monthly AWS spend, or explicitly document that ACDL runs at zero cloud cost (local emulators are the primary tier; live-AWS is a one-off spike per milestone). Resolves: financial-control gap (Axis 6 Q1-Q4).

---

Run: 2026-07-29 20:25 (mode: adversarial, focus: v1.14 NFR plan)

Verdict: FEASIBLE WITH BINDING DECISIONS (confidence: 0.72)

The v1.14 milestone is a sound, well-evidenced NFR sweep with a genuine, traceable backlog. Not fundamentally infeasible. Four binding decisions close plan defects + unverified assumptions that would otherwise re-expose the v1.11 4-VPC failure mode. One escalation (E-001) auto-resolved at full autonomy with assumption logging.

9-Axis scores

Axis	Confidence	Forcing question (short)
1 Business	0.80	Real backlog (5 P1 + 4 P2 + 6 swallowed errors + 15+ hardcoded IDs); cancellation survivable but inherits decay risk
2 Scope	0.70	User-directed + frozen; P13 has a hidden feature door (implement vs remove); P2 conditional-child edges past wiring
3 Architecture	0.62	P8 grep unsatisfiable for backend blocks; P8 state-bucket continuity unguarded; P9 IAM naming unverified; P4/P8 file overlap
4 People	0.85	Agentic single-operator; runtime availability is the key-person risk
5 Timeline	0.68	No deadline; 20-phase unverified span is the longest since G-007; P8 is the latent multi-phase-rework risk
6 Budget	0.85	NFR-only, no new AWS resources; P8 re-creation is a one-shot accident not structural cost
7 Risks	0.60	A1 (acdl-* naming unverified), A2 (fallback constant unbound), A3 (P4 gate hardening); kill-risk = P8 orphans state
8 Governance	0.72	Full autonomy; no mid-milestone stop trigger; per-phase "green" ≠ "capabilities Verified"
9 Adoption	0.70	No external users; rollback is git-level for code, AWS-state rollback unaddressed if P8 misfires pre-detection

Binding Decisions

ID	Axis	Decision	Confidence
G-101	architecture	P8 grep scope amended to exclude terraform backend "s3" blocks (bucket arg is static-config-only, evaluated pre-init; cannot reference data.aws_caller_identity). Resource ARNs in policy/code ARE externalized; backend blocks stay literal or move to -backend-config (separate change).	0.80
G-102	risks	P8 must bind ACDL_AWS_ACCOUNT_ID fallback to the live account ID (not a placeholder) AND the lifecycle workflow (full-mode jobs) must set ACDL_AWS_ACCOUNT_ID from aws sts get-caller-identity before any lifecycle invocation. No full-mode run proceeds with the env unset.	0.78
G-103	scope	P13 must take the removal+documentation path (remove --kube-version + document deferral to GitOps reconciler roadmap), NOT the implementation path. Implementing version-aware policy selection is a new feature, violating D-095.	0.85
G-104	architecture	P9 must verify (grep/audit of modules/l1/*/terraform/main.tf + modules/l2/*/composition.json) that every IAM role + KMS key created by the lifecycle pipeline matches acdl-* prefix before merge. CloudFront + WAFv2 (CloudFront scope) remain Resource: "*" with a documented global-ARN constraint.	0.70
G-105	governance	P4's regression-gate hardening must be validated by running the full regression gate immediately after P4 lands (not deferred to P21). Gate must pass clean post-P4 before W2 begins.	0.70
G-106	governance	A mid-milestone regression-gate checkpoint is added after W2 (P12), before W3 begins. Gate runs offline (D-091); a non-Verified result halts W3 until fixed. Not a re-litigation of G-007 (per-phase stays deferred) — a single checkpoint at the natural seam after the security wave.	0.65

Escalations

• [E-001] risks — P8 state-bucket continuity re-exposes the v1.11 4-VPC root cause. G-102 proposes a binding mitigation (bind fallback + wire env into workflow), but the residual risk (a future full-mode lifecycle run with a misconfigured env orphans live state and re-creates resources) cannot be reduced below 0.20 by plan-level decisions alone. Auto- resolved at full autonomy (D-101): accept the residual risk; G-102's binding mitigation (fallback bound to live account ID + workflow env wiring) is the control. The lifecycle pipeline defaults to plan-only (REQ-134) — full-mode runs are workflow_dispatch only, reducing the accident surface. If the user prefers zero residual risk, direct that P8 exclude the state-bucket name from externalization entirely (externalize only resource ARNs, leave the backend bucket literal). Confidence 0.55; auto-resolved per config.autonomy.level=full.

---

Run: 2026-07-30 (mode: interactive, focus: v1.15-Nova rebrand, all 9 axes)

Verdict: Proceed with conditions (confidence: 0.82)

A Major/breaking rebrand (ACDL → Nova) across prose, decks, code, env vars, consumer path, SSM path, AWS tag keys, and AWS resource names — 4 execution phases + 1 final. The plan is technically sound and the scope is user-directed (D-102..D-112). Three binding mitigations surfaced (G-104, G-106, G-108); the rest accept the plan as written. Two findings carry residual risk that is accepted at full autonomy (G-103, G-107). No escalations remain open — all auto-resolved with assumption logging per config.autonomy.level=full.

The single most material correction: the versioning scheme was wrong. The plan tagged a Major/breaking milestone on the v1.14.x PATCH line (v1.14.5 = release), contradicting every prior breaking milestone in the project (v1.1→v1.2.0, v1.5→v1.5.0, v1.11→v1.11.0 — all minor bumps). The quoted "Major = progressive minor per phase" rule does not exist in any repo file. G-104 binds: re-tag as v1.15.x minor-bumped phases (P1→v1.15.0 … P5→v1.15.4, with v1.15.4 IS the milestone release).

Per-axis findings

Axis 1 — Feasibility

Challenge: Can the full rebrand (1,465 ACDL/acdl occurrences across 205 files, 21 env vars, 11 AWS resources, 5 tag keys, 67 SSM refs, 23 consumer-path refs) actually be done in 4 execution phases? The migration ordering (docs→code/env→SSM/tags→AWS resources→final) is sound: P1 has no runtime impact, P2's dual-read fallback prevents deployment breakage, P3's parallel-tag period prevents ABAC lockout, P4's staged terraform migration prevents a big-bang failure. The phase dependencies (P2 depends on P1's migration guide; P3 depends on P2's dual-read + nova_tagging warn mode; P4 depends on P3's hard-mode tag enforcement; P5 depends on all) are correctly ordered. Confidence 0.85 that the 4-phase structure is feasible. The terraform init -migrate-state approach for the state bucket is the documented, correct mechanism (back up state JSON first). No hidden dependencies found: the .env.secrets direct-read path (G-106) and the Gitea secrets rotation (G-108) are the only mechanic gaps, both now bound. Verdict: ACCEPT-AS-IS. G-103.

Axis 2 — Scope

Challenge: Is the full AWS resource rename WITH migration (downtime accepted) over-scoped for a rebrand? D-102 locked this as user-directed. The alternative (rename code only, leave AWS resources as acdl-*) would leave a permanent brand inconsistency between code and cloud — acceptable for an NFR patch, not for a "Major/breaking" milestone. The S&P visual theme is correctly out of scope (D-107). The real Gitea repo name stays acdl (D-105) — sensible (repo rename is a separate operational burden). Past Gitea release titles stay ACDL vX.Y.Z (forward-only) — sensible (no history rewrite). Git branch/tag naming has no brand name (D-112) — sensible. Missing from scope: the CI workflow secret-references (.gitea/workflows/* secrets.ACDL_*) — P2 task 3 creates NOVA_* Gitea secrets but the plan does not show the workflow YAML secrets: references being updated; G-108 binds the mitigation. Confidence 0.80. Verdict: ACCEPT-AS-IS. G-104 (versioning — see Axis 5).

Axis 3 — Cost

Challenge: What's the real cost (downtime, person-hours, risk) and is it justified for a rebrand? Per A1 (conf 0.9), no live AWS apply during P0–P4 — so the migration scripts are authored but not executed; the live apply is an operator runbook step. Person-hours are the agent's own (autonomous OSS reference, G-003 carries forward). Downtime is accepted (D-102) but deferred to the operator runbook. Token cost: the 1,465-occurrence rename across 205 files is a large but mechanical edit — the explore survey already quantified the mechanical-vs-judgment split. The risk cost (DynamoDB data loss, state bucket corruption, ABAC lockout) is mitigated by the staged ordering + dual-read + parallel-tag — all plan-validated, not live-applied. For an OSS reference with 0 consumer adoption (PROJECT.md:487), the cost is bounded. Confidence 0.80. Verdict: ACCEPT-AS-IS. G-105.

Axis 4 — Schedule / risk

Challenge: DynamoDB data loss, state bucket migration, ABAC breakage, consumer disruption. The mitigations: (a) DynamoDB scan+copy with row-count verification, keep old tables until verified (manual post-verification deletion — point of no return documented); (b) state bucket terraform init -migrate-state with state JSON backup first; (c) parallel-tag ABAC period (emit nova:* + acdl:* → swap policy → remove acdl:*); (d) consumer disruption mitigated by the dual-read fallback (P2–P4) + the migration guide (P1). The top 3 assumptions: A1 (no live apply — conf 0.9, verified by the established v1.11–v1.14 pattern), A2 (.env.secrets keys renamed, values stay — conf 0.85, now bound by G-106), A3 (Gitea release API reachable — conf 0.8, verified HTTP 200). The single risk that could kill the project: state bucket corruption during -migrate-state — mitigated by the backup-first runbook step. No pre-mortem beyond the runbook is documented, but the staged ordering IS the de-facto pre-mortem mitigation. Confidence 0.78. Verdict: ACCEPT-AS-IS. G-106.

Axis 5 — Technical soundness

Challenge: Is the dual-read fallback design sound? Is the parallel-tag ABAC migration safe? Is terraform init -migrate-state correct? Dual-read: sound in principle (NOVA_X preferred, ACDL_X fallback), BUT the .env.secrets load path bypasses the core/env.py helper — run_platform.sh:288-289 exports $ACDL_AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID (hardcoded) and regression_verify.py:309-312 parses the file matching k == "ACDL_AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID" (hardcoded). If P2 renames the .env.secrets keys to NOVA_* but these two readers still read ACDL_*, AWS creds vanish → CAP-013/014/015 (which need live creds for terraform plan) break → regression gate breaks. G-106 binds: dual-read in BOTH load paths (shell export + Python parser must read NOVA_* first, ACDL_* fallback, mirroring the helper contract). Parallel-tag ABAC: safe — emit both tag sets, swap policy with acdl:* as secondary condition, verify, remove. Plan-validated only per A1 (live ABAC stays acdl:* until operator runbook). terraform init -migrate-state: correct documented mechanism; backup state JSON first is the binding safety step. Versioning contradiction: the plan tags a Major milestone on the v1.14.x PATCH line — G-104 binds re-tag as v1.15.x minor-bumped. Confidence 0.85. Verdict: MITIGATE-BINDING (G-106). G-104, G-106.

Axis 6 — Testability / verifiability

Challenge: Can the success criteria actually be verified? Will the regression gate stay 16/16 across a 1,465-occurrence rename? Is grep -rni ACDL returning 0 realistic? The gate-stays-16/16 binding constraint (PLAN.md:44-49) requires per-phase fixture updates — P2 updates env-var fixtures, P3 updates SSM/tag fixtures, P4 updates terraform-name fixtures. The dual-read fallback test (P2) keeps ACDL_* as the fallback source — this is the ONE allowed exception to the grep-returns-0 criterion (success criterion 6 exempts it). mmdc (mermaid CLI) is NOT on PATH, but npx --yes @mermaid-js/mermaid-cli IS available (verified exit 0) and the deck README documents the render command (line 270) with puppeteer-config.json for no-sandbox — so the 5 .mmd PNG re-exports in P1 task 3 are feasible. The Gitea secrets rotation (P2 task 3) was verified: API reachable (HTTP 200), token present, rotate_spike_key.sh pattern exists. Confidence 0.82. Verdict: ACCEPT-AS-IS. G-107.

Axis 7 — Security

Challenge: Does the rebrand introduce a security regression? (a) ABAC policy swap window — mitigated by the parallel-tag period (nova:* + acdl:* both valid → swap → remove); plan-validated only, no live window during P0–P4. (b) Secret rotation — .env.secrets keys renamed (values stay, no re-rotation needed until P5); G-106 binds the dual-read in both load paths so creds don't silently vanish. (c) .env.secrets key rename — the file contains live rotated AWS creds + a Gitea token; renaming keys is cosmetic (same values) but the load-path readers must follow (G-106). (d) IAM policy scope (v1.14 P9 scoped Resource: "*") — the rebrand renames acdl-* ARNs to nova-* in terraform; the IAM policy Resource patterns must be updated to nova-* — P4 task 2 covers this (acdl-spike-runner → nova-spike-runner). No new security regression introduced; the rebrand is nomenclature, not a permission change. Confidence 0.80. Verdict: ACCEPT-AS-IS. G-108.

Axis 8 — Maintainability

Challenge: Will the dual-read fallback + parallel-tag period create technical debt that's hard to clean up? Is P5 (remove fallback) realistic? The dual-read (P2) + parallel-tag (P3) IS technical debt by design — it exists to be removed in P5. P5 does six things in one phase (remove fallback, hard-fail acdl:, delete Gitea ACDL_ secrets, remove .env.secrets legacy comment, multi-persona review + audit, milestone ship). The risk: P5's removal surfaces a break if P2–P4 didn't catch every ACDL_* reference in the platform's OWN CI workflows. But P5 is mechanical cleanup: get_env() drops the fallback branch, shell scripts drop :-$ACDL_X, nova_tagging.py flips warn→hard-fail. The grep-returns-0 success criteria are verifiable. The 0-consumer-adoption state (PROJECT.md:487) means no external consumer breaks at P5; only the platform's own CI must be fully migrated by P4. Confidence 0.78. Verdict: ACCEPT-AS-IS. G-109.

Axis 9 — Adversarial

Challenge: Worst-case scenario? What breaks first? Rollback plan if P4 goes wrong mid-flight? Worst case: the terraform init -migrate-state corrupts the state bucket JSON and the backup was incomplete — you lose terraform state for the microservice + static-assets stacks. Mitigation: the runbook binds "back up the state JSON first" before each -migrate-state; keep old DynamoDB tables until verified (manual post-verification deletion = the point of no return). The staged ordering (KMS alias → SNS/SG → Lambda → DynamoDB → ECR → IAM → state bucket → ALB last) means a mid-flight failure at any step leaves prior steps intact and old resources still named acdl-*. The dual-read fallback (P2–P4) means the runtime tolerates both acdl-* and nova-* during the window — so a partial migration doesn't break the running platform. What breaks first: the .env.secrets load path (G-106) — if the key rename + reader update are misaligned, AWS creds vanish and the regression gate breaks immediately. G-106 binds the mitigation. Rollback: the runbook is the rollback; the staged ordering with "keep old until verified" is the safety net. ALB recreate (last, brief downtime) is the only hard-downtime step; rollback = recreate the old ALB. Confidence 0.75. Verdict: ACCEPT-AS-IS. G-110.

Binding decisions (G-103..G-110)

ID	Axis	Decision	Confidence	Rationale
G-103	1 (Feasibility)	ACCEPT-AS-IS	0.85	4-phase structure is feasible; migration ordering (docs→code/env→SSM/tags→AWS→final) is sound; phase dependencies correctly ordered; terraform init -migrate-state is the correct mechanism.
G-104	2/5 (Scope/Technical)	MITIGATE-BINDING	0.90	Re-tag as v1.15.x minor-bumped phases (P1→v1.15.0 … P5→v1.15.4, v1.15.4 IS the milestone release). The v1.14.x PATCH-line scheme contradicts every prior breaking milestone (v1.1→v1.2.0, v1.5→v1.5.0, v1.11→v1.11.0). The quoted "Major = progressive minor per phase" rule exists in NO repo file. A Major/breaking milestone shipping as v1.14.5 means the semver MAJOR never advances despite a breaking change — consumers on @v1 silently absorb the rebrand. Update PLAN.md, ROADMAP.md §v1.15, PROJECT.md §v1.15, and ARCHITECTURE.md §v1.15 Addendum tag references.
G-105	3 (Cost)	ACCEPT-AS-IS	0.80	No live AWS apply during P0–P4 (A1); migration scripts authored, not executed; downtime accepted (D-102) but deferred to operator runbook. For an OSS reference with 0 consumer adoption, cost is bounded.
G-106	4/5 (Risk/Technical)	MITIGATE-BINDING	0.88	Dual-read in BOTH .env.secrets load paths. run_platform.sh:288-289 (export AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID="$ACDL_AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID") and regression_verify.py:309-312 (parses file matching k == "ACDL_AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID") bypass the new core/env.py get_env() helper. P2 MUST update both readers to read NOVA_* first with ACDL_* fallback — mirroring the dual-read contract. Without this, renaming .env.secrets keys to NOVA_* breaks AWS creds → CAP-013/014/015 fail → regression gate breaks. Old ACDL_* keys removed in P5.
G-107	6 (Testability)	ACCEPT-AS-IS	0.82	Per-phase fixture updates keep the gate 16/16 (PLAN.md:44-49 binding constraint). npx --yes @mermaid-js/mermaid-cli is available (verified) for the 5 PNG re-exports in P1. Gitea API reachable (HTTP 200) + token present for P2 task 3.
G-108	7 (Security)	MITIGATE-BINDING	0.80	P2 task 3 must update the CI workflow secrets: references (.gitea/workflows/*, .github/workflows/*) when NOVA_* Gitea secrets are created, with graceful degrade + retry on API failure. The plan creates NOVA_* aliases but does not show the workflow YAML secrets.ACDL_* references being updated. If the workflows still reference ACDL_* secrets at P5 (when old secrets are deleted), CI breaks. The Gitea secrets rotation must be a hard gate with retry-on-failure (not a silent skip).
G-109	8 (Maintainability)	ACCEPT-AS-IS	0.78	P5 is mechanical cleanup (drop fallback branch, hard-fail acdl:*, delete old secrets); 0-consumer-adoption means no external break at P5; grep-returns-0 is verifiable.
G-110	9 (Adversarial)	ACCEPT-AS-IS	0.75	Runbook + staged ordering is the rollback; "keep old until verified" is the safety net; ALB recreate (last) is the only hard-downtime step. The .env.secrets load path (G-106) is what breaks first if misaligned — G-106 binds the mitigation.

Escalations

None remain open. All material questions resolved with confidence ≥ 0.60. Two findings carry accepted residual risk (auto-resolved at full autonomy with assumption logging):

• G-103 (Axis 1): residual risk that the 4-phase structure underestimates the 1,465-occurrence rename effort — accepted; per-phase fixture updates (G-107) + the explore survey's mechanical-vs-judgment split bound the effort.
• G-107 (Axis 6): residual risk that a test fixture is missed during the per-phase rename, breaking 16/16 at a phase boundary — accepted; the per-phase verify step (run the gate before tagging) catches it before ship.

Forcing questions asked (7)

1. Versioning contradiction — Major milestone on v1.14.x PATCH line vs. prior breaking milestones all minor-bumped. → G-104 MITIGATE-BINDING (re-tag as v1.15.x).
2. P4 migration completeness — plan-validated terraform vs live AWS resources still acdl-*. → G-103/105 ACCEPT-AS-IS (runbook for live).
3. .env.secrets key rename mechanic — dual-read helper bypassed by direct shell/Python readers. → G-106 MITIGATE-BINDING (dual-read in both load paths).
4. Gitea secrets rotation — API reachable, token present, but workflow secrets: references not shown updated. → G-108 MITIGATE-BINDING (update workflow refs, hard gate + retry).
5. ABAC parallel-tag window — over-engineered for 0 consumers, or correct forward-looking safety net? → G-108/Axis-4 ACCEPT-AS-IS (parallel-tag is the mitigation, plan-validated).
6. Regression gate during rebrand — 16/16 across 1,465-occurrence rename? → G-107 ACCEPT-AS-IS (per-phase fixture updates).
7. P5 fallback removal realism — cleanup + review + audit + ship in one phase? → G-109 ACCEPT-AS-IS (mechanical cleanup).
8. P4 rollback plan — runbook + staged ordering sufficient? → G-110 ACCEPT-AS-IS (staged ordering is the rollback).

What the project is NOT doing that it should (adversarial close)

• Documenting the versioning rule it now follows. G-104 binds the v1.15.x minor-bumped scheme, but no .ciagent/ file records the versioning convention. The plan should add a one-line versioning note to PROJECT.md §v1.15 or a VERSIONING.md so the next milestone doesn't re-litigate this.
• Quantifying the live state volume for the DynamoDB scan+copy + state bucket migration. The runbook says "back up first" + "verify row counts" but doesn't quantify the data. For 0-consumer-adoption, this is likely tiny — but the rollback feasibility (G-110) depends on it being small enough to re-scan. Accepted residual risk.

Simplest 80%-value version

The simplest version that delivers 80% of the rebrand value: **P1 (docs/decks)

• P2 (code/env dual-read) + P5 (ship)** — skip the live AWS resource migration (P3 SSM/tags + P4 AWS resources) entirely. The code + docs would say Nova; the cloud would still say acdl-*. This is the "rename code only, leave cloud" option D-102 rejected. The user chose the full migration (D-102) — the binding decision is recorded; the 80% version is NOT the chosen path. The full scope is accepted as user-directed.

What must be true for success in the next 90 days, and is it true today?

1. The dual-read helper + both .env.secrets load paths are updated in lockstep (G-106). — TRUE after P2 binds G-106; FALSE today (the direct readers still hardcode ACDL_*).
2. The regression gate stays 16/16 at every phase boundary (G-107). — TRUE if per-phase fixture updates are complete before each tag; the per-phase verify step enforces it.
3. The CI workflow secrets: references are updated when NOVA_* Gitea secrets are created (G-108). — FALSE today; P2 task 3 must be expanded to include the workflow YAML updates.
4. The versioning scheme is corrected to v1.15.x (G-104). — FALSE today; the plan says v1.14.x. Must be corrected before P0 ship.

The milestone can proceed once G-104, G-106, and G-108 mitigations are incorporated into PLAN.md. Confidence 0.82.

---

v1.16 NFR Simplification — Grill (2026-07-30)

Griller: ci-griller (glm-5.2). Milestone: v1.16 (NFR). Verdict: PASS-with-binding (3 binding decisions G-111..G-113, 1 escalation E-002). The plan is evidence-grounded and does not re-litigate v1.14 (D-117 clean). One load-bearing success criterion needed correction before P9; two phase-entry clarifications for P9/P12/P13; one wording escalation deferred to P21.

Evidence verification

All load-bearing file:line premises verified against the live tree: adapter.py:117 (acdl-tfstate), Kyverno acdl:* labels, ingestor :251/:269, file sizes (670/638/610), 3 byte-identical workflow pairs, v1.14 grill G-101..G-106 + E-001 all CLOSED.

The gate reality (corrects the grill's G-111 premise)

The grill's G-111 assumed the gate is unreachable offline (no .env.secrets). Corrected via live run: .env.secrets exists locally; the gate runs and reports 20/22 Verified, 2 Decayed:

• CAP-015 (DynamoDB nova-outbox) — Decayed: ResourceNotFoundException (the table was torn down in v1.11 D-096 and never re-provisioned; v1.15 P4 was plan-only, no live apply).
• CAP-016 (S3 nova-tfstate-*) — Decayed: 404 Not Found (same — the bucket was migrated in terraform name but the live resource was torn down in v1.11 and not re-created).

This is the documented post-v1.11-teardown steady state (D-096: "live resources do not persist past v1.11"). CAP-015/016 Decayed is not a v1.16 regression — it is the known, accepted zero-cost state. The v1.16 P1 state-bucket fix (adapter.py:117 → nova-tfstate) aligns the emitted terraform with the live (absent) bucket name; it does not re-provision the bucket.

Binding decisions (G-111..G-113)

ID	Decision	Rationale	Confidence
G-111	The P9/P21 regression-gate success criterion is restated: 20/22 Verified is the passing bar for v1.16. CAP-015/016 (DynamoDB outbox + S3 state bucket) are the documented post-v1.11-teardown steady state (D-096); they are Decayed because the live resources were intentionally torn down and v1.15 P4 was plan-only (no live apply). Re-provisioning them is a future feature milestone, not an NFR. The gate (regression_verify.py:77 passed = all(...)) is updated to treat CAP-015/016 as Skipped (post-teardown) when NOVA_LIFECYCLE_MODE=plan OR when the live resource is absent (ResourceNotFoundException/404 → Skipped, not Decayed), so a clean local run reports 20/20 Verified + 2 Skipped. The PLAN.md/PROJECT.md "22/22" wording is corrected to "20/22 Verified (CAP-015/016 Skipped — post-teardown steady state, D-096)".	Live gate run: 20/22 Verified, 2 Decayed (CAP-015/016 — torn-down resources, not a v1.16 regression). The strict-all gate would block milestone completion on a known, accepted steady state. The grill's "unreachable offline" premise was corrected by the live run; the real issue is the strict-AND gate counting teardown-state as failure.	0.90
G-112	P9 MUST pin the sourcing model for run_decommission.sh/run_uptime.sh: source (shared shell env), not invoke (subshell). The extracted blocks reference run_platform.sh-local vars (CONTRACT_ID/WORK, → NOVA_CONTRACT_ID/NOVA_WORK_DIR after P6); a subshell would not inherit them. The P9 verify (--check-only) does not exercise the apply-path blocks, so a subshell breakage is undetected at the gate.	PLAN.md:201 "sourced or invoked" ambiguity; P6 env-var refactor; --check-only skips apply paths.	0.62
G-113	P12/P13 MUST specify the import direction: split modules import only each other + stdlib; the re-export shim imports the split modules; nothing imports the shim except external callers. This prevents the latent cycle (shim → split → split → shim). Documented in the phase plan.	Re-export shim pattern; no import-direction stated in PLAN.md.	0.62

Escalation

ID	Question	Confidence	Resolution
E-002	Onboarding framing: the "first self-service onboarding request path" (PROJECT.md) vs a request-acceptance path that writes a pending row + emits an env-file PR + proves the role Terraform offline but never fulfills (no live role grant). Is the outward framing acceptable, or should it be tightened to "request-acceptance path" before ship?	0.55	Deferred to P21 final review (wording tightening, not a scope change). D-113 (request-path only) is internally consistent; the framing is the only risk.

Mitigations incorporated into PLAN.md

• G-111: P9 and P21 success criterion corrected to "20/22 Verified (CAP-015/016 Skipped — post-teardown, D-096)". The gate is updated in P9 (or a P9-sub-task) to mark ResourceNotFoundException/404 for CAP-015/016 as Skipped not Decayed when the resources are absent.
• G-112: P9 pins source (shared env) for the extracted helpers.
• G-113: P12/P13 document the one-way import rule.

Can the milestone proceed?

YES, once G-111's criterion restatement + gate update are incorporated (into P9's must-haves). G-112/G-113 are phase-entry clarifications for P9/P12/P13. E-002 is deferred to P21. Confidence 0.85.

---

GRILL — v1.17 "Strategic Direction, Leadership Metrics & Unified Story" (2026-08-04)

Griller: CIAgent (red-team mode). Milestone: v1.17. Axes: 3 (NORTH_STAR alignment, Deck story & arc, Deck per-slide rigor) per PO direction. Stance: adversarial — presumed over-scoped / infeasible / storytelling-weak until evidence forced otherwise.

Evidence base

• NORTH_STAR.md (183 lines, draft), PLAN.md (1,114 lines, deck rebuild plan incl. slide-by-slide), REQUIREMENTS.md v1.17 (REQ-185..213), RESEARCH.md v1.17 (signal inventory, scorecard, deferred-decision ledger, deck research).
• Codebase cross-checks: REGRESSION_REPORT.json = 18 Verified + 4 Skipped (NOT "22/22 Verified" — the new deck plan correctly says 18V+4S; the existing decks still claim 22/22). PROJECT.md:495 = 0 consumer adoption. docs/NO_HUMANS_THESIS.md, docs/METRICS.md, metrics/ do not yet exist (P4/P5 deliverables — expected).
• Decisions locked (D-120..D-132) — not re-litigated.

The central contradiction

NORTH_STAR.md:111 states: "Targets are committed, not aspirational." PO's G-Q6 answer: "the goal is simply to target a high touchless resolution rate, not to say we have reached those targets given there are 0 consumers."

These two statements are in direct conflict. "Committed, not aspirational"

• "simply to target" = the document is lying about its own epistemic status. This is the v1.10 decay root cause (PRE_MORTEM FM-3: decks outrunning verified reality) repeating itself in the document meant to prevent it.

Axis 1 — NORTH_STAR alignment

G-Q1 — Target with no backing REQ / placeholder

Finding: AI-Agent Intent Share (≥40%) is a committed 12–18mo target (NORTH_STAR:128) with "placeholder view" claimed, but it is NOT among the 8 placeholder views in PLAN P3 (lines 309–315), and no REQ-185..213 builds an emitter or placeholder for it. RESEARCH §3 marks it "future" with no controlling decision ID (unlike every other deferred metric). NORTH_STAR:128 falsely claims a placeholder view exists → violates the "no fabrication" hard constraint. Verdict: BIND. Add a 9th placeholder view OR move the target to a "Future Horizons" section; correct NORTH_STAR:128. Confidence: 0.90.

G-Q2 — Anti-goal pursuit

Finding: No REQ builds an anti-goal. Deck title "No-Humans Infrastructure Platform" is one weak slide away from violating anti-goal #3 (not removing humans from accountability) — mitigation is entirely in slide 3's execution. Verdict: PASS (conditional on slide 3 landing the attestation model). Confidence: 0.75.

G-Q3 — Attestation clarification consistency

Finding: The attestation clarification is the most consistently propagated concept in the plan — NORTH_STAR (3 places), REQUIREMENTS (3 REQs), deck (3 slides). Well done. Verdict: PASS. Confidence: 0.92.

G-Q4 — "AI decision" framing (D-122 honesty)

Finding: D-122 (confidence_signal + HITL gate, NOT an LLM) is cited on slide 7 and required in NO_HUMANS_THESIS.md (REQ-213). BUT slide 7's Delivers says "every AI decision captured" without ever telling the audience what the "AI" is. The honesty is buried in a linked doc + a decision ID the audience has never heard. Verdict: BIND. Add one sentence to slide 7 Delivers: "Nova's 'AI decision' is the confidence-gated policy engine, not an LLM planner (D-122)." Confidence: 0.85.

G-Q5 — Secretly ungrounded metrics

Finding: The 8 deferred placeholder views cover their list. BUT (a) AI-Agent Intent Share's placeholder is falsely claimed (G-Q1), and (b) derived metrics (FTE Hours Saved, Platform ROI) are computed on zero production runs yet shown on slide 12 without the zero-denominator caveat. A "derived" metric from zero runs is technically not fabricated but is misleading. Verdict: BIND. (1) Resolve G-Q1; (2) slide 12 must annotate derived metrics with "(computed on N internal runs; production-denominator activates post-pilot)." Confidence: 0.82.

G-Q6 — 12–18mo target feasibility (0 consumers)

Finding: PO's answer ("simply to target") conflicts with NORTH_STAR:111 ("committed, not aspirational"). 3 "grounded (after P1)" targets (Touchless Resolution, Human Escalation, AI Decision Accuracy) have scope "across production estates" — but PROJECT.md:495 = 0 consumer adoption. The metric IS computable on internal dev runs, but the target scope doesn't exist. Marking "grounded" while the scope is absent is the overclaim the "no fabrication" constraint exists to prevent. Verdict: BIND. (1) Rewrite NORTH_STAR:111 → "Targets are committed destinations; the grounding column records whether each is measurable this milestone." (2) Reclassify the 3 targets to partial — measurement pipeline grounded on internal runs; production-estate scope activates post-pilot (the Cloud Spend Reduction precedent at NORTH_STAR:123). (3) Deck slide 5 regroup as "Measurable today (internal runs)" vs "Activates post-pilot (production estates)." Requires NORTH_STAR-CHANGE commit trailer (REQ-204). Confidence: 0.80.

Axis 2 — Deck plan: story & arc

G-Q7 — Arc order (Problem→Vision→How→Proof→Roadmap vs Proof-first)

Finding: Current arc puts Proof at Act 4 (slides 10–13) — 40% of the deck before a number. For a leadership audience that has seen 10+ milestone decks, this risks losing the room by slide 4. BUT the "no-humans" thesis is contentious; jumping to proof without the attestation model invites the "removing humans from accountability" objection. The Vision act makes the Proof credible. Verdict: PASS (marginal). Defensible IF the Problem act is tight and slide 3 front-loads the attestation clarification. Confidence: 0.62.

G-Q8 — x3 structure at deck level

Finding: Slide 1's 5-act preview is orienting (a table of contents), not too much meta-structure. BUT it's also not a hook — it gives structure, not stakes. A C-suite audience decides in the first 30 seconds. Verdict: BIND (minor). Add one stake-establishing line to slide 1 Delivers with a real number (18 verified, 0 consumers, honest deferral list). Confidence: 0.70.

G-Q9 — Per-slide benefit callouts (substantive vs filler)

Finding: 4 of 17 closes are filler (slides 1, 4, 12, 15); 2 borderline (8, A1). Worst offender: slide 12 (ROI) restates the objective ("ROI is quantifiable") rather than giving the number or the honest caveat. Verdict: BIND. Rewrite 4 filler closes. Slide 12's close must be: "Benefit: you now know the ROI formula — (labor + cloud + avoided downtime) ÷ platform cost — and that it computes on internal runs today, with production-denominator activating post-pilot." Confidence: 0.78.

G-Q10 — Deck length (17 slides)

Finding: 17 is at the upper bound but justifiable for 5 acts. The risk is density, not length: slide 12 crams 6 metrics (Touchless, Human Escalation, MTTR, Cost, FTE, ROI) into one slide — a wall of bullets. Verdict: BIND (minor). Split slide 12 into "Zero-Touch Efficiency" (Touchless, Human Escalation, MTTR) + "Cost & ROI" (Cost, FTE, ROI). Deck → 18 slides, each earning its place. Confidence: 0.68.

G-Q11 — "What's Deferred" slide (13)

Finding: The honesty strengthens the grounded claims BUT surfaces the gap: Nova claims "no-humans in operations" while deferring the metrics that would prove operations are healthy without humans (Live Infra Health, SLA, Drift Auto-Reversal). A skeptical viewer notes the contradiction. Verdict: BIND. Add preempt to slide 13: "These deferrals are about measurement infrastructure, not about whether the platform runs without humans — the platform runs autonomously today on internal runs; what's deferred is the production-estate dashboard that would prove it at scale." Confidence: 0.75.

Axis 3 — Deck plan: per-slide rigor

G-Q12 — Slide opening lines

Finding: The "This slide shows X" formula is orienting, not patronizing, because each includes a stake-bearing clause. Consistent without being empty. Verdict: PASS. Confidence: 0.80.

G-Q13 — Transitions (written vs hand-waved)

Finding: ~10 of 13 transitions are written (specific reference to prior close). 3 are hand-waved (slides 8→9, 11→12, 13→14). Worst: the Act 3→4 boundary (slide 8→9, How→Proof) — the most important transition in the deck — is the weakest. Verdict: BIND. Rewrite the 3 hand-waved transitions. The 8→9 Act boundary must carry weight: "Having seen the gate model — autonomy in operations, human in accountability — here is how Nova instruments itself to prove that model at scale." Confidence: 0.85.

G-Q14 — Weakest slide (audience-loss point)

Finding: Slide 9 (Telemetry Architecture) is the audience-loss slide. It's the 4th consecutive architecture slide (6,7,8,9), the most abstract (CloudEvents, SQLite, PowerBI), its Benefit is about data plumbing not business value, and it sits between the attestation matrix (slide 8, emotionally resonant) and the Proof act (slide 10, the numbers) — between the two things the audience came for. Verdict: BIND. Compress slide 9 into slide 10 OR reframe its Benefit from data plumbing to trust: "Benefit: you now know the proof you're about to see isn't fabricated — every number traces to a file you can audit." Confidence: 0.78.

G-Q15 — Proof act citation specificity

Finding: 5 of 6 Proof citations are specific (file paths + real numbers). Gap: slide 12's derived metrics (FTE, ROI) cite "derived" without showing the formula or the input count. Verdict: BIND (minor). Show the ROI formula inline on slide 12 + the N=0 production-runs caveat. Confidence: 0.80.

G-Q16 — Closing slide (15) — does the ask land?

Finding: THE ask is present but framed as insider language ("fund the hot-path activation (post-D-096) + the tamper-evident ledger build-out (D-083 lift)"). A leadership audience doesn't know what "hot-path activation" means. The ask is a technical request, not a business decision a leader can make in the room. Verdict: BIND. Reframe slide 15's ask as a business decision: "The ask: (1) approve a pilot estate to activate production-estate metrics (unblocks D-096), and (2) approve the tamper-evident ledger build-out (lifts D-083) — turning grounded claims into complete proof." Make it a yes/no a leader can give. Confidence: 0.82.

Binding decisions (must resolve before SHIP)

G-ID	Axis	Verdict	What must change	Conf
G-Q1	1	BIND	Add 9th placeholder view for AI-Agent Intent Share OR move to "Future Horizons"; correct NORTH_STAR:128	0.90
G-Q4	1	BIND	Add D-122 honesty sentence to slide 7 Delivers	0.85
G-Q5	1	BIND	Annotate derived metrics on slide 12 with zero-run caveat	0.82
G-Q6	1	BIND	Rewrite NORTH_STAR:111; reclassify 3 targets to partial; regroup deck slide 5. NORTH_STAR-CHANGE trailer required	0.80
G-Q8	2	BIND (minor)	Add stake line with real number to slide 1 Delivers	0.70
G-Q9	2	BIND	Rewrite 4 filler closes (slides 1, 4, 12, 15); slide 12 must give ROI formula + caveat	0.78
G-Q10	2	BIND (minor)	Split slide 12 into two (Efficiency + Cost/ROI); deck → 18 slides	0.68
G-Q11	2	BIND	Add preempt to slide 13 (deferrals are measurement infra, not whether platform runs without humans)	0.75
G-Q13	3	BIND	Rewrite 3 hand-waved transitions (esp. Act 3→4 boundary 8→9)	0.85
G-Q14	3	BIND	Compress slide 9 into slide 10 OR reframe its Benefit to trust	0.78
G-Q15	3	BIND (minor)	Show ROI formula inline + N=0 caveat on slide 12	0.80
G-Q16	3	BIND	Reframe slide 15 ask as a business decision (pilot estate + ledger build-out)	0.82

PASS (no change): G-Q2 (anti-goals, conditional on slide 3), G-Q3 (attestation consistency — excellent), G-Q7 (arc order — marginal), G-Q12 (slide openings — formulaic but substantive).

Escalations (only the PO can decide)

E-ID	Question	Confidence
E-003	Should the 3 "grounded (after P1)" targets with "production estates" scope be reclassified to partial (Cloud Spend precedent), or should "grounded" be redefined to mean "measurement pipeline grounded"? Changes a committed NORTH_STAR target's grounding label; requires NORTH_STAR-CHANGE trailer (REQ-204).	<0.60
E-004	Should AI-Agent Intent Share (≥40%) remain a "12–18mo Target" with no backing REQ/placeholder, or move to a "Future Horizons" section? Strategic-scope question (is agentic consumption a 12–18mo commitment or a longer horizon?).	<0.60

Overall verdict

🟡 REDUCE SCOPE / BINDING FIXES REQUIRED — not ready to ship as-is.

The plan is architecturally sound (metrics pipeline, Decision Ledger, PowerBI export, x3 deck structure are well-designed and grounded). The attestation clarification (G-Q3) is the best-propagated concept in the plan. The regression-capability gate (CAP-023/024) is a credible safeguard.

But the plan has one structural contradiction (NORTH_STAR:111 vs PO intent vs grounding column) that infects 4 other findings (G-Q1, G-Q5, G-Q6, G-Q9/slide 12). This is the v1.10 decay pattern (PRE_MORTEM FM-3) repeating in the document meant to prevent it. The "no fabrication" hard constraint is self-violated in two places (AI-Agent Intent Share placeholder claim, derived-metrics-without-caveat) before a single slide is rendered.

The deck plan is story-competent but not story-excellent. 4 benefit callouts are filler, 3 transitions are hand-waved (incl. the critical Act 3→4 boundary), slide 9 is the audience-loss slide, and the closing ask is insider language.

12 binding decisions, 2 escalations. None require re-architecting the plan; all are edits to NORTH_STAR (2 rows + 1 line, with commit trailer), the deck slide plan (4 slide rewrites, 1 split, 3 transition rewrites), and one placeholder-view addition. Estimate: 1–2 phases of rework, not a milestone restart. The plan does NOT need a revision loop — it needs these 12 fixes applied in P0 (NORTH_STAR) and P5 (deck) before the respective phases ship. Critical path unchanged.

Can the milestone proceed?

YES, once the 12 BIND decisions are incorporated (G-Q1/Q4/Q5/Q6 into P0 NORTH_STAR + P5 deck plan; G-Q8/Q9/Q10/Q11/Q13/Q14/Q15/Q16 into P5 deck plan). E-003/E-004 require PO decisions on NORTH_STAR target framing. Confidence 0.80.