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.