docs(P00): complete pre-execution phase — v0.3

---ci--- project: atelier phase: 0 milestone: v0.3 status: complete requirements: covered: [ATELIER-60..91 governance: spec, clarify, research, ideate, plan, grill] partial: [] ---/ci---
2026-08-05 03:16:41 +00:00
10 changed files with 946 additions and 22 deletions
@@ -1,12 +1,9 @@
 {
-  "phase": 5,
+  "phase": 0,
-  "stage": "complete",
+  "stage": "clarify",
-  "milestone": "v0.2",
+  "milestone": "v0.3",
-  "phase_role": "final",
+  "phase_role": "pre_execution",
  "project": "atelier",
  "attempts": 0,
-  "updated_at": "2026-08-05T02:45:00Z",
+  "updated_at": "2026-08-05T03:08:00Z"
  "milestone_complete": true,
  "phase_tag": "v0.1.5",
  "release_id": 467
 }
@@ -12,7 +12,11 @@ atelier/
 ├── domains/                    # Domain-specific application of core
 │   ├── ... (v0.1: 11 domains)
 │   ├── infrastructure-as-code/ # v0.2: IaC tooling (terraform, opentofu, state, modules)
-│   └── kubernetes/             # v0.2: k8s platform (workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize)
+│   ├── kubernetes/             # v0.2: k8s platform (workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize)
 │   ├── gitops-operators/       # v0.3: GitOps + Operators (argocd, flux, operators, progressive-delivery)
 │   ├── ai-ml/                  # v0.3: ML engineering (data-versioning, model-evaluation, serving, monitoring-drift)
 │   ├── i18n/                   # v0.3: internationalization (locale-resources, formatting, rtl-bidi, testing-i18n)
 │   └── compliance/             # v0.3: compliance/audit (audit-logs, data-retention, policy-as-code, evidence)
 ├── languages/                  # Language-specific application of domains
 ├── review/                    # Evaluation checklists and anti-patterns
 ├── matrix/                    # Cross-reference: domain ↔ core
@@ -80,4 +84,26 @@ Two new top-level domains extend the tree under the same hierarchy rules:
 Both domains follow the v0.1 contract: 10 P-rules each, every rule traced to a core C-rule via the matrix, no orphans. The manifest (`MANIFEST.md`) is extended to keep them authoritative. No runtime code — examples are illustrative markdown with manifests in code fences only.
-See `.ciagent/atelier/RESEARCH.md` for the full prior-art survey and `.ciagent/atelier/PERSONAS.md` for the persona roster (3 custom active personas + 1 phase-specific platform-engineer; 3 default personas deactivated).
+See `.ciagent/atelier/RESEARCH.md` for the full prior-art survey and `.ciagent/atelier/PERSONAS.md` for the persona roster (3 custom active personas + 1 phase-specific platform-engineer; 3 default personas deactivated).
 ## v0.3 Domain Additions
 Four new top-level domains extend the tree under the same hierarchy rules. All four follow the v0.1/v0.2 contract: 10 P-rules each, every rule traced to a core C-rule via the matrix, no orphans, docs-only markdown with illustrative code fences (no runtime/deployable artifacts). Total matrix grows from 130 → 170 domain principles across 13 → 17 domains.
 - **`gitops-operators/`** — platform-automation domain. First principles govern the declarative-source-of-truth reconciliation loop shared by ArgoCD, Flux, Kubernetes Operators, and Progressive Delivery tooling (Argo Rollouts, Flagger). Depends on `core/`. Cross-links to `kubernetes/` (workloads, rbac, helm, kustomize — the platform GitOps reconciles onto), `infrastructure-as-code/` (declarative intent, state-as-truth — the shared model), `devops/` (P1 Reproducibility, P4 Rollback First, P5 Progressive Delivery, P6 Configuration as Code), `security/` (secrets, supply-chain — GitOps credentials, signed manifests), `observability/` (reconciliation metrics, drift visibility). Derived docs: `argocd.md`, `flux.md`, `operators.md`, `progressive-delivery.md`.
 - **`ai-ml/`** — ML engineering domain (engineering discipline, NOT algorithm design per D-023). First principles govern data versioning, model evaluation, serving, and monitoring/drift. Depends on `core/`. Cross-links to `data/` (schema-design, migrations, indexing — data lineage and versioning share the migration/reversibility model), `observability/` (metrics, tracing — model serving metrics, drift signals), `devops/` (P1 Reproducibility — training/serving reproducibility, P7 Immutability — model images), `security/` (input-validation — inference input validation, secrets — model/serving credentials), `performance/` (backend — serving latency). Derived docs: `data-versioning.md`, `model-evaluation.md`, `serving.md`, `monitoring-drift.md`.
 - **`i18n/`** — internationalization domain. First principles govern locale resources, formatting, RTL/bidi layout, and testing. Depends on `core/`. Cross-links to `uiux/` (components, accessibility, copywriting — locale-aware UI is the consumer), `testing/` (fixtures, pyramid — i18n testing parallels), `api/` (error-responses — localized API errors), `data/` (schema-design — locale data shapes). Derived docs: `locale-resources.md`, `formatting.md`, `rtl-bidi.md`, `testing-i18n.md`.
 - **`compliance/`** — compliance/audit domain (framework-agnostic, NOT regulation-specific per D-024). First principles govern audit logs, data retention, policy-as-code, and evidence collection. Depends on `core/`. Cross-links to `security/` (authorization — who did what, secrets — audit log integrity, supply-chain — signed policy), `observability/` (logging, metrics — audit logs are a structured-logging concern, tracing — evidence from distributed traces), `data/` (schema-design, migrations — retention schema), `infrastructure-as-code/` (policy-as-code parallels IaC declarative intent), `kubernetes/` (rbac — audit subject identity). Derived docs: `audit-logs.md`, `data-retention.md`, `policy-as-code.md`, `evidence.md`.
 All four domains depend on `core/` only for authority; cross-links to existing domains are one-directional (per v0.2 D-026 convention extended to v0.3 — minimize churn to existing content). The manifest (`MANIFEST.md`) is extended in P4 to list all new documents. Examples (P5) are illustrative markdown with fenced code only — no `.yaml`, `.json`, `.po`, model artifacts, or deployable manifests as standalone files.
 ## v0.3 Ideation Architectural Notes
 From the v0.3 ideation stage (IDEATE-17..30), the following architectural refinements are baked into the execute-phase plan:
 - **Manifest scope expansion (IDEATE-17 → ATELIER-91):** the v0.2 audit escalation (ESC-002 note) flagged that `examples/` is not listed in `MANIFEST.md`. P4 adds an `examples/` directory listing to the manifest, closing the pre-existing drift. The manifest remains authoritative; unlisted directories are not part of the framework by definition.
 - **Matrix coverage summary invariants (IDEATE-18 → ATELIER-80):** the matrix coverage summary must reflect post-v0.3 totals (17 domains, 170 P-rules) — both the summary block and the per-domain section count.
 - **Core Principle Coverage table (IDEATE-19 → ATELIER-81):** `matrix/domain-coverage.md` contains two tables — the per-domain row schema table (covered by v0.2 IDEATE-03) AND the "Core Principle Coverage" table mapping C1–C8 → domains. Both must be extended for the 4 new domains; the C-rule counts shift (e.g., C4 Locality adds i18n + gitops; C5 Reversibility adds ai-ml + compliance + gitops + i18n).
 - **Cross-link type unchanged:** v0.3 introduces no new cross-link type. All cross-links remain one-directional outward from new domains to existing (D-033). No back-link edits to v0.1/v0.2 content.
 See `.ciagent/atelier/RESEARCH.md` "v0.3 Research" for the full prior-art survey and principle inventory rationale, and `.ciagent/atelier/PERSONAS.md` for the v0.3 persona roster (5 active: lead-developer, tech-writer, domain-expert + 2 phase-specific platform-engineer, ml-engineer; 3 default personas deactivated).
@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
 # Atelier — Grill (Adversarial Red-Team Review)
 > Pre-execution gate for milestone v0.3 (GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance).
 > Default assumption: the project is unfeasible, over-scoped, and too costly. Not convinced until evidence forces it.
 > Mode: full autonomy. Auto-resolve at confidence ≥ 0.60; escalate only < 0.60 that cannot be auto-resolved.
 ---
 ## v0.3 Grill — 2026-08-05
 **Milestone:** v0.3 — GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance
 **Phase:** 0 (Pre-Execution, GRILL stage)
 **Grill scope:** all 9 axes + meta
 **Prior grill runs:** none (v0.1/v0.2 P0 stages did not include a GRILL stage; this is the first)
 ### Verdict: **PROCEED** (confidence 0.80)
 The project is ambitious but deliberately bounded. Scope has been trimmed in three places (D-023 AI/ML engineering-only, D-024 compliance framework-agnostic, D-025 2+2 examples). Two prior milestones (v0.1: 35 reqs, v0.2: 24 reqs) shipped clean with the same docs-only NFR structure. The 4-domain scope is the largest single milestone yet, but per-phase derived-doc counts (P1: 4, P2: 4, P3: 8) are lower than v0.1's P3 (27 derived docs in one phase). Traceability verification is explicit (P4 matrix row-count test: 10 × 17 = 170; P5 cross-link audit). The one residual risk — P3 i18n/compliance content authored without specialist personas — is bounded by RESEARCH.md prior-art depth and P6 domain-expert review, with rework being cheap (markdown edits).
 ---
 ### Axis 1 — The Business Case Itself
 | # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
 |---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
 | 1.1 | What problem does this solve, and is it still the top priority? | RESEARCH.md: "Atelier's differentiation: traceable principle hierarchy with a join table. Existing frameworks state principles; none provide a matrix mapping every domain rule back to a core rule." v0.1/v0.2 shipped (59 reqs covered). | A first-principles engineering framework with a traceable principle matrix — the join table is the unique value. v0.3 extends the domain catalog (GitOps, AI/ML, i18n, compliance) that v0.2 deferred (IDEATE-15/16). Still the top priority: the 4 domains were explicitly deferred to v0.3, not abandoned. | 0.78 |
 | 1.2 | Who is the named executive sponsor, and when did they last decide under pressure? | git log: all commits by Jon Chery (jchery@jccapital.xyz). config.json autonomy: "full". | Single-owner project. The "sponsor" is the owner-operator. The last decision under pressure: v0.2 ESC-001/ESC-002 (git transport auth failure, stale tags) — resolved at full autonomy (AUDIT-P5-resync.md). Not a committee-driven project; no sponsor-stall risk. | 0.80 |
 | 1.3 | What happens to the business if the project is cancelled? | PROJECT.md objective; MANIFEST.md current state (13 domains, 130 P-rules post-v0.2). | The framework remains at v0.2 (13 domains). The 4 deferred domains (GitOps, AI/ML, i18n, compliance) stay deferred — a 2x deferral that risks zombie status. Cancellation is worse than proceeding: the deferral was already made once. | 0.82 |
 | 1.4 | Is the ROI calculated against a counterfactual? | N/A — docs-only project, no monetary budget. Cost = agent tokens + time. | The counterfactual is "agents and humans have no canonical principle reference for GitOps/AI-ML/i18n/compliance." The ROI is framework coverage. Two prior milestones validated the cost model (docs-only, no infra). | 0.75 |
 **Axis 1 confidence: 0.79.** No challenges. Auto-resolve.
 ### Axis 2 — Scope and Requirements
 | # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
 |---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
 | 2.1 | Is the scope expanding, contracting, or stable? | PROJECT.md D-016 (4 domains grouped to limit release overhead), D-023 (AI/ML = engineering discipline, NOT algorithm design), D-024 (compliance framework-agnostic, NOT regulation-specific), D-025 (2+2 examples, not 4+4). | Scope is **expanding** (4 new domains, the largest milestone yet) but **deliberately trimmed** in three places. D-023/D-024/D-025 are scope-discipline decisions, not scope-creep. The trims reduce the surface from a hypothetical 4+4 examples + regulation-specific compliance docs + algorithm-design AI/ML to a bounded 2+2 + framework-agnostic + engineering-only. | 0.80 |
 | 2.2 | Who owns the requirements, and are they frozen? | REQUIREMENTS.md ATELIER-60..91 (32 reqs, all pending). Traceability matrix maps phases→reqs. Ideation log (IDEATE-17..30) shows 14 accepted, 0 deferred, 0 rejected. | Requirements are frozen post-ideation. 32 reqs across 6 phases. The ideation stage closed with 0 deferred — everything generated is in v0.3 scope. No moving targets. | 0.85 |
 | 2.3 | What is explicitly out of scope? | PROJECT.md lines 49-55: tooling/linters, translation of framework docs, agent integration adapters, per-domain release artifacts, runtime code. D-023: algorithm/model design. D-024: regulation-specific compliance docs. | Out of scope is explicit and enumerated: no runtime code, no tooling, no translation, no regulation-specific docs, no algorithm design. The scope boundary is answerable — not infinite. | 0.88 |
 | 2.4 | Are there hidden requirements disclosed late? | RESEARCH.md: ai-ml cross-links to data/ (schema, migrations) but D-023 scopes AI/ML to engineering discipline, not data engineering. PERSONAS.md: data-engineer explicitly inactive ("No database, schema, or migrations in this docs-only project"). | No hidden requirements detected. AI/ML does NOT imply a data-engineer persona — D-023's engineering-discipline scope excludes data engineering (schema/ETL/pipelines). The cross-link to data/ is a reference, not a duplication. | 0.85 |
 **Axis 2 confidence: 0.84.** Challenge: is 4-domain scope too ambitious for one milestone? → Auto-resolved (G-001). Challenge: hidden data-engineer persona requirement? → Auto-resolved (G-008).
 ### Axis 3 — Architecture and Technical Feasibility
 | # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
 |---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
 | 3.1 | Has the architecture been validated by builders, not just sellers? | RESEARCH.md: prior-art surveys for all 4 domains (OpenGitOps Principles v1.0.0, Sculley "Hidden Technical Debt", ICU/CLDR/BCP 47, NIST/SOC2/OPA). ARCHITECTURE.md: v0.3 domain additions section with cross-link map. | The architecture (hierarchical doc tree + matrix join table) is validated by 2 prior shipped milestones. The 4 new domains follow the same v0.1/v0.2 contract: 10 P-rules each, trace to ≥1 C-rule, docs-only. RESEARCH.md pre-maps all 40 P-rules to C-rules before execution. | 0.85 |
 | 3.2 | What is the integration surface? | ARCHITECTURE.md: cross-links one-directional (D-033). RESEARCH.md: gitops→6 domains, ai-ml→6 domains, i18n→4 domains, compliance→6 domains. D-033: no back-link edits to v0.1/v0.2 content. | The integration surface is cross-links only — one-directional outward from new domains to existing. No back-link edits to v0.1/v0.2 content (D-033). This minimizes churn. Every new derived doc requires ≥1 outbound cross-link (ATELIER-88, verified in P5). | 0.86 |
 | 3.3 | Is there an existing system being replaced? What is the data volume? | MANIFEST.md: 13 domains, 130 P-rules post-v0.2. matrix/principles-matrix.md: 212 lines, 13 domain sections. | No system is replaced — the framework is extended. Matrix grows 130→170 P-rules. At 170 rows, the matrix is a large but single readable markdown file. domain-coverage.md provides the C-rule→domains navigation view. The matrix is the arbiter; its size is linear with domains. | 0.84 |
 | 3.4 | What technical debt is inherited? | AUDIT-P5-resync.md §6: "examples/ not in MANIFEST — pre-existing, candidate for v0.3." ATELIER-91, D-035: add examples/ listing to MANIFEST in P4. | One piece of inherited debt: examples/ unlisted in MANIFEST (ESC-002 convention note from v0.2 audit). v0.3 closes this explicitly (ATELIER-91, D-035, task 04-02-05). No other drift identified (A-001, confidence 0.85). | 0.85 |
 | 3.5 | Compliance has NO C4 (Locality) trace (D-032) — is that an architectural smell? | RESEARCH.md D-032: "compliance is inherently cross-cutting, not local." Compliance P-rules trace to C1,C2,C3,C5,C6,C7,C8 (7 of 8). Alternative considered: "force C4 via audit-log locality" — rejected. | **Not a smell.** C4 (Locality) is about keeping concerns local to their context. Compliance is the opposite — it is inherently system-wide (audit logs span the whole system, retention policy is global, evidence is cross-cutting). Forcing a C4 trace would be a false derivation. D-032's rationale is architecturally sound: the absence reflects the domain's nature, not a gap. | 0.82 |
 | 3.6 | Is the docs-only constraint (D-020) defensible at 17 domains? | PROJECT.md constraint: "no runtime code." MANIFEST.md is the authoritative index. ARCHITECTURE.md: reading-order guides consumption. matrix/principles-matrix.md is the join table. | **More defensible at 17 domains, not less.** The docs-only constraint is what makes the framework scalable: no runtime complexity, no integration surface, no deployment, no build step. At 17 domains, the MANIFEST + reading-order + matrix make the tree navigable. The framework's value (traceable hierarchy) scales linearly — more domains = more value, as long as traceability holds. A build step or runtime would violate docs-as-code simplicity and add the exact integration surface the framework avoids. | 0.88 |
 **Axis 3 confidence: 0.85.** Challenges: C4 gap (G-006), docs-only at 17 domains (G-007), matrix orphan risk (G-003), manifest drift (G-011). All auto-resolved.
 ### Axis 4 — People, Skills, and Organization
 | # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
 |---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
 | 4.1 | Which 2-3 people, if they left, would the project fail? | PERSONAS.md: 5 active personas (lead-developer, tech-writer, domain-expert + 2 phase-specific: platform-engineer, ml-engineer). D-051: ml-engineer constraints baked into P5 task must-have. | In an AI-agent docs project, "personas" are constraint sets, not human employees. The key-person risk is lower than in runtime projects. D-051 ensures ml-engineer constraints survive into P5 (examples) even though the persona is removed after P2. The constraint is baked into the task must-have, not the persona's continued presence. | 0.80 |
 | 4.2 | Are resources allocated at the claimed percentages? | config.json: max_concurrent_agents=5. PLAN.md: P3 Wave 2 splits 8 tasks into 2a/2b, capped at 5 concurrent (D-049). | Allocation is mechanical — the executor schedules ≤5 concurrent per config.json. P3's 8 derived docs run as 5-then-3 (A-003, confidence 0.90). P4 runs exactly 5 concurrent (D-050). No "in name only" allocation — this is agent execution, not human BAU fire-fighting. | 0.85 |
 | 4.3 | Is there a product owner with actual authority? | git log: single author (Jon Chery). config.json autonomy: "full". PROJECT.md: D-001..D-053 decision table. | Single owner-operator with full autonomy. No committee. Decisions are transparent (D-001..D-053 with confidence scores). Authority is unambiguous. | 0.85 |
 | 4.4 | Is the team building capability they don't have? | PERSONAS.md: P3 (i18n + compliance) authored by tech-writer + domain-expert — NO specialist persona (D-022). RESEARCH.md: i18n covers ICU/CLDR, BCP 47, UAX #9 bidi algorithm; compliance covers OPA/Cedar/Kyverno/Sentinel, Cosign/in-toto. | **This is the most material risk.** P3's i18n (RTL/bidi, UAX #9) and compliance (policy-as-code engine semantics) have genuine specialist depth. The tech-writer persona authored v0.1's security/data/concurrency domains without specialists and shipped clean — but those are more universally known than bidi algorithms and Rego semantics. **Mitigation:** RESEARCH.md provides thorough prior-art surveys with specific source citations (unicode.org, W3C i18n WG, openpolicyagent.org, kyverno.io). The P6 review includes domain-expert validation. Rework, if needed, is bounded (markdown edits, not infrastructure). **Assumption logged (A-006):** i18n RTL/bidi and compliance policy-as-code content correctness depends on RESEARCH.md prior-art quality + P6 review, not on a specialist persona. | 0.72 |
 | 4.5 | Are the phase-specific personas (platform-engineer, ml-engineer) a key-person risk? | PERSONAS.md: both are phase-specific, removed post-v0.3. D-027: platform-engineer reused/extended from v0.2. D-028: ml-engineer new. D-051: constraints baked into task must-haves. D-052: both review their content in P6 before removal. | **Not a key-person risk.** Personas are constraint sets, not people. Platform-engineer is a proven reuse from v0.2 (shipped clean). Ml-engineer is new but its constraints are explicitly enumerated and baked into task must-haves (D-051). Both review their content in P6 before removal (D-052). If either "fails," the fallback is tech-writer + domain-expert + RESEARCH.md grounding. | 0.80 |
 **Axis 4 confidence: 0.80.** Challenge: P3 specialist-persona competency gap (G-009). Auto-resolved with assumption A-006.
 ### Axis 5 — Timeline and Estimates
 | # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
 |---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
 | 5.1 | Was the deadline set before or after scope/approach were understood? | git log: specify (c96d21c) → clarify (675abb6) → research (0620c94) → ideate (1a0326b) → plan (d8473d6). PLAN.md created after research + ideation. | The phase plan was created AFTER research and ideation — the scope was understood before the plan was written. No reverse-engineered deadlines. The "timeline" is the phase sequence P0→P6, not an external date. | 0.88 |
 | 5.2 | What is the critical path, and what would push it by 3+ months? | PLAN.md: P1→P2→P3→P4→P5→P6, all sequential. P4 (matrix) depends on all domains. P5 (examples) depends on P4 (manifest). | Critical path: P1→P2→P3→P4→P5→P6. **Nothing can push it by 3+ months** — this is a docs project with no external dependencies, no infrastructure provisioning, no vendor lead times. The only "push" is content-quality rework, which is bounded (markdown edits). | 0.90 |
 | 5.3 | Are estimates evidence-based? | v0.1: 35 reqs, 7 phases, shipped. v0.2: 24 reqs, 5 phases, shipped. v0.3: 32 reqs, 6 phases. Per-phase doc counts: P1=5, P2=5, P3=10, P4=7, P5=4, P6=2. | Estimates are analogous (v0.1/v0.2 shipped with similar per-phase doc counts). v0.1 P3 produced 27 derived docs in one phase; v0.3's largest phase (P3) produces 10. The estimate is conservative relative to v0.1's demonstrated throughput. | 0.85 |
 | 5.4 | Is there a working definition of done? | PLAN.md P6 Verify: all 32 reqs covered, reconstruction test passes, matrix row-count test (170), MANIFEST reconstruction test (incl. examples/), audit clean, tag v0.2.6 exists, branches deleted. | DoD is concrete and testable: 32 reqs covered, matrix = 170 rows (10 × 17), MANIFEST reconstruction passes, tag v0.2.6 on main. Not "whatever the demo shows." | 0.88 |
 **Axis 5 confidence: 0.88.** No challenges.
 ### Axis 6 — Budget and Financial Realism
 | # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
 |---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
 | 6.1 | What % of budget is spent vs remaining? | N/A — docs-only, no monetary budget. Cost = agent tokens. v0.1/v0.2 completed within expected token bounds. | No monetary budget. Token cost is proportional to markdown authored. v0.3 is the largest milestone (32 reqs, 18 derived docs + 4 examples + extensions), but per-doc token cost is roughly constant and validated by 2 prior milestones. | 0.85 |
 | 6.2 | Are there predictable cost drivers not in the original budget? | PROJECT.md: no runtime code, no infrastructure, no licensing, no external services. | None. Docs-only = no licensing, no infra, no security review fees, no data migration, no support contracts. The only cost driver is markdown volume, which is scoped by REQ count. | 0.90 |
 | 6.3 | Burn rate and runway? | N/A — no monetary burn. Agent execution time is the only resource. | No monetary runway concern. Agent execution is bounded by phase task count. | 0.88 |
 | 6.4 | Is the budget contingent on something? | config.json: no contingent conditions. | No. The project is not contingent on a sale, board approval, or hiring. | 0.90 |
 **Axis 6 confidence: 0.88.** No challenges. The docs-only constraint makes this axis low-risk by construction.
 ### Axis 7 — Risks, Assumptions, and Dependencies
 | # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
 |---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
 | 7.1 | Top 3 assumptions the plan rests on? | PLAN.md Assumptions: A-001 (ESC-002 is the only manifest drift, 0.85), A-002 (4 domains map to C1-C8 without new core principles, 0.95), A-003 (P3 Wave 2 schedules 5-then-3, 0.90). | A-002 is the strongest (0.95) — RESEARCH.md pre-maps all 40 P-rules to existing C-rules. A-001 is reasonable (AUDIT-P5-resync.md confirms). A-003 is mechanical (config.json cap). All three have evidence. | 0.86 |
 | 7.2 | External dependencies? | PROJECT.md: no runtime code. RESEARCH.md: all prior art is published (OpenGitOps, ICU/CLDR, NIST, OPA docs). | None. No vendor, regulator, or external team dependency. All prior art is published and cited. The framework is self-contained markdown. | 0.92 |
 | 7.3 | Single project-killing risk? | RESEARCH.md Risks table: orphaned P-rules, domain overlap, AI/ML scope drift, compliance bloat, artifact leakage, persona explosion. | The single risk that would undermine the framework's core value: **matrix orphan P-rules.** If the 40 new P-rules don't trace cleanly to C-rules, the traceable hierarchy (the unique value proposition) is broken. **Mitigation:** P4 matrix row-count test (10 per domain × 17 = 170) + domain-expert sign-off + P6 reconstruction test. This is well-mitigated and explicitly verified. | 0.84 |
 | 7.4 | Pre-mortem: 12 months from now, v0.3 failed. Why? | (adversarial analysis) | **Most likely failure:** P3 content quality — i18n RTL/bidi or compliance policy-as-code authored without specialist personas contains fundamental technical errors (e.g., bidi isolating run misuse, Rego evaluation model mischaracterization), caught in P6 review, requiring P3 rework. **Secondary:** the 2+2 example set leaves 2 domains without a good example (gitops + ai-ml get good examples; i18n + compliance get only bad examples), reducing adoption value. **Both are bounded** — rework is markdown edits, not infrastructure. Neither is project-killing. | 0.78 |
 **Axis 7 confidence: 0.85.** Challenge: pre-mortem P3 content quality (G-012). Auto-resolved.
 ### Axis 8 — Governance, Decision-Making, and Communication
 | # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
 |---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
 | 8.1 | Who is the decision-maker when executives disagree? | git log: single author. config.json: autonomy "full". | Single owner-operator. No executive disagreement possible. Decisions are recorded in PROJECT.md (D-001..D-053) with confidence scores. | 0.88 |
 | 8.2 | How often does governance meet, and what's the escalation pattern? | config.json: autonomy level "full", escalation_hooks ["deploy", "delete_data", "merge_to_main"], decision_confidence_threshold 0.6, escalation_timeout_ms 300000. | Governance is the ciagent workflow itself (specify→clarify→research→ideate→plan→grill→execute→review→audit→ship). Escalation: 3 hooks (deploy, delete_data, merge_to_main) + timeout 300s. The grill stage (this) is the pre-execution gate. Cadence is event-driven, not calendar-driven — appropriate for agent execution. | 0.82 |
 | 8.3 | What is omitted from status reports? | AUDIT-P5-resync.md: candid about ESC-001/ESC-002 (git auth failure, stale tags). Convention note about examples/ MANIFEST drift flagged, not hidden. | Status reporting is transparent. The v0.2 audit explicitly flagged the examples/ MANIFEST drift (ESC-002) rather than burying it. v0.3 picks it up as ATELIER-91. No evidence of optimistic glossing. | 0.85 |
 | 8.4 | Is there a "stop the project" trigger? | This grill stage. Verdict options: Proceed, Reduce scope, Rethink, Escalate. | The grill IS the stop-the-project gate. If the verdict were "Rethink" or "Escalate" with blocking issues, P1 would not proceed. Cancellation is not politically impossible — it's a mechanical verdict. | 0.85 |
 **Axis 8 confidence: 0.85.** No challenges.
 ### Axis 9 — Change, Adoption, and Operational Readiness
 | # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
 |---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
 | 9.1 | Who uses this, how does their work change, what's in it for them? | PROJECT.md: "consumed by AI agents as pre-completion guidance and by humans as engineering canon." review/agent-checklist.md is the pre-completion gate. | Users: AI agents (read MANIFEST→core→domains before tasks) and humans (engineering reference). Their work changes by consulting a traceable principle hierarchy before acting. The value: conflict resolution has an arbiter (the matrix), not just opinions. | 0.80 |
 | 9.2 | Is the operations team involved now or handed a finished product? | N/A — docs-only repo, no operations team. | No operations team. The "go-live" is tagging v0.2.6 + merging to main. No runtime to operate, no on-call, no SLO. | 0.92 |
 | 9.3 | What is the rollback plan? | Standard git workflow: revert + re-tag. | Git revert + re-tag. Standard for docs repos. v0.2 demonstrated the pattern (ESC-002 force-updated tags). | 0.88 |
 | 9.4 | Have success criteria been validated with judges? | ROADMAP.md Success Criteria: all checked for v0.1. v0.2 completed clean (AUDIT-P5-resync.md: 10 checks pass). | Success criteria validated by 2 prior milestones. The pattern: reqs covered + reconstruction test + audit clean + tag exists. v0.3 adds matrix row-count test (170) and MANIFEST reconstruction (incl. examples/). | 0.85 |
 **Axis 9 confidence: 0.86.** No challenges.
 ### Meta — Closing Review
 | # | Forcing Question | Evidence | Answer | Confidence |
 |---|-----------------|----------|--------|------------|
 | M.1 | If you were the auditor, what would you flag? | (adversarial analysis) | The P3 specialist-persona gap (i18n + compliance authored by tech-writer without specialists). It's a content-quality risk, not a traceability risk. The mitigation (RESEARCH.md depth + P6 review) is adequate but not redundant — there's no second layer of content validation beyond domain-expert traceability checks. | 0.75 |
 | M.2 | What is the project NOT doing that it should? | PROJECT.md out-of-scope: tooling/linters. | Not doing: automated P-rule→C-rule trace validation (manual domain-expert verification only). This is explicitly out of scope (tooling is future work). At 170 P-rules, manual verification is still feasible but approaching the limit where tooling would be warranted. Not a v0.3 blocker. | 0.80 |
 | M.3 | Simplest 80% version? | (adversarial analysis) | Ship 2 domains (gitops-operators + ai-ml) and defer i18n + compliance to v0.4. This halves the scope. **But:** v0.2 already deferred these once (IDEATE-15/16). Re-deferral makes them 2x deferred — zombie risk. The current 4-domain plan is better than re-deferral. D-022's pairing of the two smaller domains in P3 is the right load-balance call. | 0.82 |
 | M.4 | What must be true in 90 days for success, and is it true today? | (adversarial analysis) | Must be true: (a) 40 new P-rules trace cleanly to C-rules — RESEARCH.md pre-maps them, P4 verifies. (b) 18 derived docs each have ≥1 valid cross-link — ATELIER-88 verifies in P5. (c) Content is technically correct (especially i18n bidi + compliance policy-as-code) — RESEARCH.md grounds it, P6 validates. (a) and (b) have explicit verification gates. (c) depends on execution quality. All three are achievable. | 0.80 |
 **Meta confidence: 0.79.**
 ---
 ### Binding Decisions
 | ID | Decision | Rationale | Confidence | Alternatives |
 |----|----------|-----------|------------|--------------|
 | G-001 | Proceed with 4-domain scope as planned; do not split into v0.3a/v0.3b | Scope is deliberately trimmed (D-023/D-024/D-025); per-phase doc counts (P1:4, P2:4, P3:8) are lower than v0.1 P3 (27); v0.2 already deferred these domains once — re-deferral risks zombie status; D-016 groups them to limit release overhead | 0.80 | Split into 2 milestones (rejected: 2x deferral + double release overhead); reduce to 2 domains (rejected: same) |
 | G-002 | Phase-specific personas (platform-engineer, ml-engineer) are NOT a key-person risk | Personas are constraint sets, not humans; D-051 bakes constraints into task must-haves (survive persona removal); D-052 ensures both review content in P6 before removal; platform-engineer is proven reuse from v0.2 (shipped clean) | 0.80 | Add more specialist personas (rejected: persona explosion); remove phase-specific personas (rejected: content quality risk) |
 | G-003 | 40 new P-rules will trace cleanly to C-rules; matrix orphan risk is mitigated | RESEARCH.md pre-maps all 40 P-rules to C-rules (D-029..D-032); P4 matrix row-count test (10 × 17 = 170) + domain-expert sign-off; P6 reconstruction test; A-002 (confidence 0.95) confirms core is stable at 8 | 0.85 | Force broader C-rule derivations (rejected: false derivations worse than accurate narrow ones); add new core principles (rejected: A-002 confirms unnecessary) |
 | G-004 | i18n + compliance pairing in P3 (D-022) is load-balancing-sound | Both are 4-derived-doc domains (smaller surface than P1/P2); P3 Wave 2 schedules 8 docs as 5-then-3 (A-003, 0.90); the scheduling is not a bottleneck — the content-quality risk is (see G-009) | 0.82 | Separate i18n and compliance into distinct phases (rejected: adds a phase, no load benefit); move one to P2 (rejected: P2 is AI/ML, a heavier domain) |
 | G-005 | 2-good + 2-bad example set (D-025) is adequate for 4 domains | Each domain gets exactly 1 example (gitops: good, ai-ml: good, i18n: bad, compliance: bad); ATELIER-84 adds 4 domain-specific anti-patterns per domain (16 total) = 5 illustration points per domain; v0.1 had 7 examples for 11 domains (most domains had 0) — v0.3 is better coverage | 0.75 | 4-good + 4-bad (rejected: D-025 unbalances P5); 1-per-domain good only (rejected: bad examples have higher illustration value for i18n/compliance) |
 | G-006 | Compliance C4 (Locality) gap (D-032) is architecturally sound, NOT a smell | C4 Locality is about keeping concerns local; compliance is inherently cross-cutting (audit logs span the system, retention is global, evidence is cross-cutting); forcing C4 would be a false derivation; D-032 considered and rejected the alternative "force C4 via audit-log locality"; the absence reflects the domain's nature | 0.82 | Force C4 via audit-log locality (rejected: false derivation); add a C4-tracing compliance P-rule (rejected: would be artificial) |
 | G-007 | Docs-only constraint (D-020) is defensible at 17 domains — more so, not less | The docs-only constraint eliminates runtime complexity, integration surface, deployment, and build steps — the exact things that make large frameworks unwieldy; MANIFEST + reading-order + matrix make the tree navigable at scale; the framework's value (traceable hierarchy) scales linearly with domains; 170 matrix rows is a large but single readable file | 0.88 | Add a build step / linter (rejected: out of scope, violates docs-as-code simplicity); split the matrix per-domain (rejected: destroys the join-table value) |
 | G-008 | No hidden data-engineer persona requirement from adding ai-ml domain | D-023 scopes AI/ML to engineering discipline (data versioning, evaluation, serving, drift), NOT data engineering (schema/ETL/pipelines); PERSONAS.md explicitly deactivates data-engineer ("No database, schema, or migrations in this docs-only project"); ai-ml cross-links to data/ as a reference, not a duplication | 0.85 | Activate data-engineer persona (rejected: no data engineering work in a docs-only project); scope AI/ML to include data engineering (rejected: D-023 explicitly excludes) |
 | G-009 | Proceed with tech-writer + domain-expert for P3 (i18n + compliance) without specialist personas | RESEARCH.md provides thorough prior-art surveys (ICU/CLDR, BCP 47, UAX #9, W3C i18n WG, OPA/Cedar/Kyverno/Sentinel, Cosign/in-toto) with specific source citations; v0.1 tech-writer authored security/data/concurrency without specialists and shipped clean; P6 review includes domain-expert validation; rework is bounded (markdown edits). **Assumption A-006 logged:** content correctness for i18n RTL/bidi and compliance policy-as-code depends on RESEARCH.md prior-art quality + P6 review | 0.72 | Add i18n-specialist + compliance-specialist personas (rejected: persona explosion, both domains are smaller-surface per D-022); defer i18n/compliance to v0.4 with specialists (rejected: 2x deferral zombie risk) |
 | G-010 | Matrix coverage summary must read "17 domains, 170 P-rules" post-v0.3 (reinforces D-036) | D-036 (confidence 0.93) already decided this; PLAN task 04-01-01 bakes it in; both the summary block AND per-domain section count must update; the P6 audit verifies row-count (10 × 17 = 170) | 0.93 | Partial update (rejected: invariant violation) |
 | G-011 | ATELIER-91 closes the v0.2 ESC-002 manifest drift (examples/ unlisted) | AUDIT-P5-resync.md §6 flagged examples/ not in MANIFEST as a P1 convention note; ATELIER-91 (D-035, confidence 0.85) adds examples/ directory listing to MANIFEST in P4; PLAN task 04-02-05 bakes it in; A-001 (0.85) confirms this is the only manifest drift | 0.85 | Leave examples/ unlisted (rejected: manifest is authoritative, unlisted = not part of framework by definition) |
 | G-012 | Pre-mortem top risk (P3 content quality) is bounded; no escalation needed | Most likely failure mode: i18n bidi or compliance policy-as-code technical errors caught in P6, requiring P3 rework. Mitigation: RESEARCH.md prior-art depth + P6 domain-expert review. Rework is bounded (markdown edits, not infrastructure). No external dependencies. The risk is real but recoverable and does not block the milestone. | 0.78 | Defer P3 to v0.4 (rejected: zombie risk); add specialist personas (rejected: G-009 analysis) |
 ### Escalations
 **None.** All 12 challenges auto-resolved at confidence ≥ 0.60 (range: 0.72–0.93). At full autonomy, assumption logging (A-006) is preferred over escalation. No axis scored below 0.60 on any forcing question.
 ### Assumptions Logged (this grill)
 | # | Assumption | Confidence |
 |---|-----------|------------|
 | A-006 | i18n RTL/bidi and compliance policy-as-code content correctness depends on RESEARCH.md prior-art quality + P6 domain-expert review, not on a specialist persona. If P6 surfaces fundamental content errors, the remedy is P3 rework (bounded — markdown edits). | 0.72 |
 ### Summary
 - **Challenges identified:** 12 (across 9 axes + meta)
 - **Binding decisions:** 12 (G-001..G-012)
 - **Escalations:** 0
 - **Assumptions logged:** 1 (A-006)
 - **Verdict:** PROCEED at confidence 0.80
 - **Top 3 material challenges:**
  1. **G-009 (0.72):** P3 i18n + compliance authored without specialist personas — the lowest-confidence decision. Content quality for bidi algorithms and policy-as-code semantics depends on RESEARCH.md depth, not specialist persona constraints.
  2. **G-005 (0.75):** 2+2 examples across 4 domains — each domain gets only one example (good OR bad, not both). Adequate given 16 anti-patterns, but thinner than v0.2's per-domain coverage.
  3. **G-001 (0.80):** 4-domain scope is the largest single milestone — bounded by D-023/D-024/D-025 trims, but re-deferral would create zombie risk.
 - **No blocking escalations for SHIP.**
@@ -46,9 +46,25 @@
 ## Phase-Specific Personas
-None. All three active personas span the full milestone. No phase-scoped personas needed — the work is uniformly markdown authoring with domain validation.
+### platform-engineer (v0.3 — extended, active for v0.3, removed after milestone completion)
-## Phase-Specific Personas
+- **active:** true
 - **phase_specific:** true
 - **domain:** infrastructure/platform-automation
 - **frameworks:** []
 - **constraints:** ["declarative-first", "stateless examples", "trace to core", "10 P-rules per domain", "no runtime code", "source-of-truth is git", "reconciliation loop is the primitive"]
 - **territory:** ["domains/gitops-operators/**", "examples/good/gitops-pr.md", "examples/bad/* (gitops-related)"]
 - **reason:** Per D-019 / D-027: the v0.2 platform-engineer persona is reused and extended for P1 (gitops-operators), because GitOps/Operators/Progressive Delivery build directly on the k8s + IaC declarative-reconciliation model the persona already embodies. Removed after v0.3 completes; roster returns to 3 active personas. The v0.2 IaC/k8s content remains owned by tech-writer + domain-expert for cross-link maintenance.
 ### ml-engineer (v0.3 — phase-specific, removed after milestone completion)
 - **active:** true
 - **phase_specific:** true
 - **domain:** machine-learning engineering
 - **frameworks:** []
 - **constraints:** ["reproducibility is non-negotiable", "data lineage is traceable", "trace to core", "10 P-rules per domain", "no runtime code", "engineering discipline not algorithm design (D-023)", "examples are illustrative markdown only"]
 - **territory:** ["domains/ai-ml/**", "examples/good/ai-ml-reproducibility.md"]
 - **reason:** Per D-019 / D-020: AI/ML domain authoring (data versioning, model evaluation, serving, monitoring/drift) benefits from a specialist persona with reproducibility and data-lineage constraints the existing tech-writer persona lacks. Scope is engineering discipline, NOT algorithm/model design (D-023). Removed after v0.3 completes; roster returns to 3 active personas.
 ### platform-engineer (v0.2 — REMOVED after milestone completion)
@@ -66,8 +82,9 @@ Mode: `warn` (per config.json `personas.territory_enforcement`).
 At `warn`, territory violations are logged but not blocked. This is appropriate for a docs project where tech-writer may touch `.ciagent/` files incidentally (e.g., updating ROADMAP status). Strict mode would be appropriate once territories stabilize.
-## v0.2 Persona Roster Summary
+## v0.3 Persona Roster Summary
-Active personas for v0.2 (4): lead-developer, tech-writer, domain-expert, platform-engineer (phase-specific).
+Active personas for v0.3 (5): lead-developer, tech-writer, domain-expert (span full milestone), platform-engineer (phase-specific, P1 gitops-operators), ml-engineer (phase-specific, P2 ai-ml).
-Inactive personas (3, unchanged from v0.1): data-engineer, backend-engineer, frontend-engineer.
+- **Phase assignment:** P1 GitOps/Operators → platform-engineer; P2 AI/ML → ml-engineer; P3 i18n + Compliance → tech-writer + domain-expert (D-022); P4–P5 matrix/review/examples → tech-writer + domain-expert + lead-developer.
-Post-v0.2: platform-engineer removed; roster returns to 3 active personas (lead-developer, tech-writer, domain-expert).
+Inactive personas (3, unchanged): data-engineer, backend-engineer, frontend-engineer.
 Post-v0.3: platform-engineer + ml-engineer removed; roster returns to 3 active personas (lead-developer, tech-writer, domain-expert).
@@ -371,4 +371,252 @@ Tag: v0.1.0
 | 3 | ATELIER-48..52, 59 | 6 |
 | 4 | ATELIER-53..56 | 4 |
 | 5 | ATELIER-57, 58 | 2 |
-| **Total** | | **24** |
+| **Total** | | **24** |
 ---
 # Atelier — Plan (v0.3)
 > Vertical-slice plans with wave ordering for milestone v0.3 (GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance). Plans reference REQ-IDs from `.ciagent/atelier/REQUIREMENTS.md` (ATELIER-60..91). NFR milestone — all phases produce docs; no `feat` code. Per `parallelization.max_concurrent_agents = 5`, wave parallelism is capped at 5 concurrent tasks; waves larger than 5 are split into sub-waves.
 ## Phase 0 — Pre-Execution (COMPLETE)
 Stages: SPECIFY ✓ → CLARIFY ✓ → RESEARCH ✓ → IDEATE ✓ → PLAN ✓ → GRILL → SHIP
 Branch: `atelier/phase/00-pre-execution`
 Tag: v0.2.0
 ## Phase 1 — GitOps + Operators Domain
 **Goal:** Author the `domains/gitops-operators/` tree — 10 first principles (P1–P10) plus 4 derived docs (argocd, flux, operators, progressive-delivery). Grounded in CNCF OpenGitOps Principles v1.0.0 + the Operator pattern. Each P-rule derives from core C1–C8 (matrix extension lands in P4).
 **Branch:** `atelier/phase/01-gitops-operators` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier`)
 **Personas:** platform-engineer (author), domain-expert (validate traceability), tech-writer (style/format)
 **Tag:** v0.2.1
 **Requirements:** ATELIER-60, ATELIER-61, ATELIER-62, ATELIER-63, ATELIER-64
 ### Wave 1 (sequential — first-principles must exist before derived docs)
 | Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
 |------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
 | 01-01-01 | `domains/gitops-operators/first-principles.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-60 | 10 principles (P1–P10) per RESEARCH.md (Git is Source of Truth, Pull Don't Push, Continuous Reconciliation, Operators Encode Domain Knowledge, Progressive Delivery is Reversible, Reconcile Don't Mutate, Failure is Observable, Least Privilege Reconciliation); each names the core C-rule(s) it derives from; each has definition + "what violates" |
 ### Wave 2 (parallel — 4 derived docs, independent; ≤5 concurrent)
 | Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
 |------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
 | 01-02-01 | `domains/gitops-operators/argocd.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-61 | Application CRD, App-of-Apps, sync waves, health/status, diff, RBAC/SSO, multi-cluster, sync windows; **ArgoCD vs Flux decision matrix** (IDEATE-21, D-039); cross-link to flux.md, kubernetes/{workloads,rbac,helm,kustomize}.md, devops, security/secrets, observability/metrics |
 | 01-02-02 | `domains/gitops-operators/flux.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-62 | GitOps Toolkit controllers (source, kustomize, helm, notification), composable architecture, HR/Kustomization/HelmRelease CRDs, OCI sources; **ArgoCD vs Flux decision matrix** (IDEATE-21, D-039); cross-link to argocd.md + kubernetes/helm.md + kubernetes/kustomize.md |
 | 01-02-03 | `domains/gitops-operators/operators.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-63 | Operator pattern, CRDs, controllers, Operator SDK/OLM, when-to-write-an-operator vs Helm chart, scope/responsibility boundaries; cross-link kubernetes/{workloads,rbac}.md + infrastructure-as-code/modules.md |
 | 01-02-04 | `domains/gitops-operators/progressive-delivery.md` | platform-engineer | ATELIER-64 | Argo Rollouts + Flagger, canary/blue-green, analysis templates (metrics/counters), abort/rollback; cross-link devops (P4 Rollback First, P5 Progressive Delivery) + observability/metrics + kubernetes/workloads.md |
 **Verify (P1):**
 - Structural: 5 files exist under `domains/gitops-operators/`
 - Behavioral: every P1–P10 in first-principles names ≥1 C-rule (domain-expert sign-off)
 - Security: P3 (Pull, Don't Push) + P10 (Least Privilege Reconciliation) sections present
 - Quality: each derived doc has ≥1 outbound cross-link to a MANIFEST-listed doc (IDEATE-08 carried forward); argocd.md and flux.md share the decision matrix consistently (IDEATE-21)
 ## Phase 2 — AI/ML Domain
 **Goal:** Author the `domains/ai-ml/` tree — 10 first principles (P1–P10) plus 4 derived docs (data-versioning, model-evaluation, serving, monitoring-drift). Scope = engineering discipline (D-023), NOT algorithm/model design. Reproducibility and lineage are non-negotiables.
 **Branch:** `atelier/phase/02-ai-ml` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier`)
 **Personas:** ml-engineer (author), domain-expert (validate traceability), tech-writer (style/format)
 **Tag:** v0.2.2
 **Requirements:** ATELIER-65, ATELIER-66, ATELIER-67, ATELIER-68, ATELIER-69
 ### Wave 1 (sequential — first-principles first)
 | Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
 |------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
 | 02-01-01 | `domains/ai-ml/first-principles.md` | ml-engineer | ATELIER-65 | 10 principles (P1–P10) per RESEARCH.md (Reproducibility First Class, Data is Versioned Not Just Code, Lineage Traceable End-to-End, Evaluation Defined Before Training, Models are Versioned Artifacts, Serving is Observable, Drift is Expected and Detected, Inference Inputs are Validated, Pipelines Compose Notebooks Don't, Rollback Includes the Model); each names core C-rule(s); each has definition + "what violates"; ml-engineer constraint "engineering discipline not algorithm design (D-023)" enforced |
 ### Wave 2 (parallel — 4 derived docs, independent; ≤5 concurrent)
 | Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
 |------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
 | 02-02-01 | `domains/ai-ml/data-versioning.md` | ml-engineer | ATELIER-66 | DVC/Delta Lake/LakeFS patterns, data lineage, dataset hashing, train/val/test split versioning; **tool comparison table: DVC vs Delta Lake vs LakeFS** covering versioning model, lineage, use-case fit (IDEATE-22, D-040); cross-link data/{migrations,schema-design}.md + devops/P1 Reproducibility |
 | 02-02-02 | `domains/ai-ml/model-evaluation.md` | ml-engineer | ATELIER-67 | Metric selection, offline/online eval, holdout integrity, bias/fairness checks (engineering angle), eval-as-a-gate; cross-link data/schema-design.md (eval input contract) + testing/pyramid.md |
 | 02-02-03 | `domains/ai-ml/serving.md` | ml-engineer | ATELIER-68 | KServe/Seldon/BentoML, inference as a service, batching, latency SLAs, canarying models; cross-link kubernetes/workloads.md + devops (P5 Progressive Delivery, P7 Immutability) + performance/backend.md + security/input-validation.md |
 | 02-02-04 | `domains/ai-ml/monitoring-drift.md` | ml-engineer | ATELIER-69 | Evidently/Great Expectations, alerting, retraining triggers; **drift-type enumeration: data drift, concept drift, prediction drift — each with a distinct detection signal** (IDEATE-30, D-048); cross-link observability/{metrics,logging}.md + ai-ml/serving.md |
 **Verify (P2):**
 - Structural: 5 files exist under `domains/ai-ml/`
 - Behavioral: every P1–P10 traces to ≥1 C-rule (domain-expert sign-off)
 - Security: P8 (Inference Inputs are Validated) section present
 - Quality: each derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link (IDEATE-08); data-versioning.md tool comparison table present (IDEATE-22); monitoring-drift.md enumerates 3 drift types with detection signals (IDEATE-30); no algorithm-design content (D-023 enforced, ml-engineer constraint)
 ## Phase 3 — i18n + Compliance Domains
 **Goal:** Author two smaller-surface domains in one phase (D-022): `domains/i18n/` (10 first principles + 4 derived docs) and `domains/compliance/` (10 first principles + 4 derived docs). i18n grounded in ICU/CLDR + BCP 47 + W3C i18n. Compliance is framework-agnostic (D-024 — no regulation-specific docs). Both domains' first-principles land in Wave 1 (independent of each other), then derived docs in Wave 2.
 **Branch:** `atelier/phase/03-i18n-compliance` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier`)
 **Personas:** tech-writer (author, both domains), domain-expert (validate traceability for both)
 **Tag:** v0.2.3
 **Requirements:** ATELIER-70, ATELIER-71, ATELIER-72, ATELIER-73, ATELIER-74, ATELIER-75, ATELIER-76, ATELIER-77, ATELIER-78, ATELIER-79
 ### Wave 1 (parallel — 2 first-principles, independent; ≤5 concurrent)
 | Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
 |------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
 | 03-01-01 | `domains/i18n/first-principles.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-70 | 10 principles (P1–P10) per RESEARCH.md (Source Language is a Locale Not the Default, Locale Identifiers Standardized BCP 47, Resources External Not Inline, Plural/Gender Parameterized ICU MessageFormat, Formatting Locale-Aware ICU/CLDR, Text Direction is Layout Primitive, Layout Accommodates Expansion, Pseudo-Locales Test Early, Images/Icons Cultural, Translation Reversible and Versioned); each names core C-rule(s); each has definition + "what violates" |
 | 03-01-02 | `domains/compliance/first-principles.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-75 | 10 principles (P1–P10) per RESEARCH.md (Audit Logs Append-Only, Every Significant Action Logged, Retention is Policy Not Storage, Policy is Code, Policy Evaluated as a Gate, Evidence Collected Continuously, Identity Attributable, Subject Access Honored, Secrets Redacted in Audit, Compliance Posture Observable); each names core C-rule(s); each has definition + "what violates"; framework-agnostic (D-024 — no GDPR/HIPAA/SOC2-specific content) |
 ### Wave 2 (parallel — 8 derived docs, independent; split into 2 sub-waves of 4 to respect max_concurrent_agents=5)
 **Wave 2a (i18n derived docs, ≤5 concurrent)**
 | Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
 |------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
 | 03-02a-01 | `domains/i18n/locale-resources.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-71 | Resource file formats (.po/.pot, JSON, Fluent FTL, ICU Resource Bundle), key naming, namespaces, fallback chains, extraction tooling; cross-link uiux/copywriting.md + api/error-responses.md |
 | 03-02a-02 | `domains/i18n/formatting.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-72 | ICU/CLDR/Intl for dates, times, numbers, currencies, units, relative time, plural rules; BCP 47 tags; cross-link api/error-responses.md (localized errors) + data/schema-design.md |
 | 03-02a-03 | `domains/i18n/rtl-bidi.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-73 | Logical vs physical CSS properties, bidi algorithm (UAX #9), `dir` attribute, mirroring, common pitfalls (icons, numbers in RTL); cross-link uiux/{components,accessibility}.md |
 | 03-02a-04 | `domains/i18n/testing-i18n.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-74 | Pseudo-locales, snapshot testing per locale, RTL coverage, missing-key detection; **pseudo-locale tier mapping to testing pyramid: unit (missing-key), integration (snapshot per locale), e2e (RTL coverage)** (IDEATE-28, D-046); cross-link testing/{fixtures,pyramid}.md |
 **Wave 2b (compliance derived docs, ≤5 concurrent; runs in parallel with 2a — total 8 tasks, but capped at 5 → executor schedules 5 then 3)**
 | Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
 |------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
 | 03-02b-01 | `domains/compliance/audit-logs.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-76 | Append-only log patterns, structured audit events, CloudTrail/Cloud-Audit-Log conventions, queryability, retention of logs; cross-link observability/logging.md + security/authorization.md |
 | 03-02b-02 | `domains/compliance/data-retention.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-77 | Retention policies as code, lifecycle rules, deletion-as-a-feature, GDPR/CCPA abstracted to principles (not regulation-specific, D-024), retention vs backup distinction; cross-link data/{migrations,schema-design}.md |
 | 03-02b-03 | `domains/compliance/policy-as-code.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-78 | OPA/Cedar/Sentinel/Kyverno patterns, policy as CI/CD + admission gate, policy testing, versioning policy; **engine comparison table: OPA vs Cedar vs Kyverno vs Sentinel** covering policy language, evaluation gate, ecosystem (IDEATE-23, D-041); cross-link infrastructure-as-code (declarative intent) + kubernetes/rbac.md (admission) |
 | 03-02b-04 | `domains/compliance/evidence.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-79 | Evidence collection as a byproduct, audit-ready export, provenance; **fenced signed-attestation example (Cosign OR in-toto)** — not prose-only (IDEATE-29, D-047); cross-link security/supply-chain.md + observability/{metrics,tracing}.md |
 > **Parallelism note:** Wave 2a + 2b together = 8 independent tasks. The executor schedules at most 5 concurrently per `parallelization.max_concurrent_agents`; the remaining 3 run as soon as slots free. The 2a/2b labels are organizational (by domain), not a hard sequencing barrier — both sub-waves are in the same dependency tier (all depend only on Wave 1).
 **Verify (P3):**
 - Structural: 10 files exist (5 under `domains/i18n/`, 5 under `domains/compliance/`)
 - Behavioral: every P1–P10 in both first-principles traces to ≥1 C-rule (domain-expert sign-off)
 - Security: i18n P6 (Text Direction) + compliance P1 (Append-Only) + P9 (Redacted) sections present
 - Quality: each derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link (IDEATE-08); testing-i18n.md pseudo-locale→pyramid mapping present (IDEATE-28); policy-as-code.md engine comparison table present (IDEATE-23); evidence.md has a fenced signed-attestation example (IDEATE-29); no regulation-specific content in compliance (D-024)
 ## Phase 4 — Matrix + Review + Manifest Integration
 **Goal:** Extend the matrix (+40 P-rule → C-rule mappings, 10 per new domain), domain-coverage (per-domain rows + Core Principle Coverage table for 4 new domains), review docs (agent + peer-review + anti-patterns with v0.3 chaos anti-patterns), and the manifest (all v0.3 docs + `examples/` directory listing closing v0.2 ESC-002 drift). Closes the traceability loop and makes the manifest authoritative for v0.3.
 **Branch:** `atelier/phase/04-matrix-review-manifest` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier`)
 **Personas:** domain-expert (matrix + anti-patterns + coverage), tech-writer (checklists + manifest), lead-developer (manifest authoritative index)
 **Tag:** v0.2.4
 **Requirements:** ATELIER-80, ATELIER-81, ATELIER-82, ATELIER-83, ATELIER-84, ATELIER-85, ATELIER-91
 ### Wave 1 (sequential — matrix is the arbiter, must be authoritative first)
 | Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
 |------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
 | 04-01-01 | `matrix/principles-matrix.md` (extend) | domain-expert | ATELIER-80 | Add 4 sections (GitOps + Operators, AI/ML, i18n, Compliance), 10 rows each, format matching v0.1/v0.2 tables; **review check: row count per new domain = 10, each row ≥1 C-rule** (IDEATE-02, IDEATE-13 carried forward); **update Coverage Summary to "post-v0.3: 17 domains, 170 P-rules"** — both the summary block AND the per-domain section count (IDEATE-18, D-036) |
 ### Wave 2 (parallel — 5 independent extensions; exactly at max_concurrent_agents=5)
 | Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
 |------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
 | 04-02-01 | `matrix/domain-coverage.md` (extend) | domain-expert | ATELIER-81 | Add "v0.3 Domain Coverage" table with 4 rows (schema: domain, P-count, derived-doc-count, manifest-listed, status per IDEATE-03); **AND update the "Core Principle Coverage" table (C1–C8 → domains) for the 4 new domains** — C4 Locality adds i18n + gitops; C5 Reversibility adds ai-ml + compliance + gitops + i18n; etc. (IDEATE-19, D-037) |
 | 04-02-02 | `review/agent-checklist.md` (extend) | tech-writer | ATELIER-82 | Add "If GitOps + Operators", "If AI/ML", "If i18n", "If Compliance" trigger sections (IDEATE-05 carried forward); ai-ml section includes a D-023 scope check (reject algorithm-design content) |
 | 04-02-03 | `review/peer-review-checklist.md` (extend) | tech-writer | ATELIER-83 | Add 4 new domain peer-review sections (parity with agent-checklist, IDEATE-09 carried forward) |
 | 04-02-04 | `review/anti-patterns.md` (extend) | domain-expert | ATELIER-84 | Add "v0.3 Chaos Anti-Patterns" section covering: (a) **v0.3 deployable artifact types** — .po resource files, .rego policy files, model artifacts, signed manifests as standalone files (IDEATE-20); (b) **GitOps push-pattern violation** (P3 Pull Don't Push, IDEATE-24, D-042); (c) **i18n LTR-only assumption violation** (P6 Text Direction, IDEATE-25, D-043); (d) **AI/ML orphan-model violation** — deployed prediction with no lineage trace (P3 Lineage, IDEATE-27, D-045); plus domain-specific anti-patterns per RESEARCH.md/REQUIREMENTS.md notes: gitops (push-based deploy P3, manual kubectl apply on GitOps-managed resource P8, cluster-admin GitOps robot P10), ai-ml (unreproducible training run P1, "the latest" model P5, notebook in production P9, orphan model P3), i18n (inline string concatenation P3, `if (n==1)` plural branching P4, LTR-only layout P6, hand-rolled date formatter P5), compliance (mutable audit log P1, shared/generic identity in audit P7, secret leaked in audit log P9, manual evidence assembly at audit time P6) |
 | 04-02-05 | `MANIFEST.md` (extend) | lead-developer | ATELIER-85, ATELIER-91 | Add 4 new domains + all 18 derived docs to the Domains table (IDEATE-04 carried forward); update Cross-Cutting counts to "17 domains, 170 P-rules post-v0.3"; **add an `examples/` directory listing section** (good + bad files) closing the v0.2 ESC-002 drift — manifest is authoritative (IDEATE-17, D-035) |
 **Verify (P4):**
 - Structural: matrix has 17 domain sections (13 v0.1/v0.2 + 4 new), 170 P-rules total; domain-coverage has both the per-domain v0.3 table AND the updated C-rule coverage table; 3 review docs extended; MANIFEST lists all v0.3 docs + examples/
 - Behavioral: every new P-rule has a matrix row; domain-expert verifies no orphans (IDEATE-13); Coverage Summary reads "17 domains, 170 P-rules" (IDEATE-18)
 - Security: anti-patterns cover GitOps push-pattern (P3), AI/ML orphan-model (P3), i18n LTR-only (P6), compliance mutable audit log (P1) + secret-in-audit (P9)
 - Quality: MANIFEST is authoritative — every v0.3 file listed, examples/ listed (ATELIER-91 closes ESC-002); unlisted = not part of framework; agent-checklist + peer-review-checklist have parity across the 4 new domains (ATELIER-82 ↔ ATELIER-83)
 ## Phase 5 — Examples + Cross-Links
 **Goal:** Add 2 good + 2 bad examples (D-025 — highest illustration value) and verify cross-domain links from all 4 new domains to existing ones. Examples are markdown with fenced code only (no standalone .yaml/.po/.rego/model artifacts — D-020).
 **Branch:** `atelier/phase/05-examples-crosslinks` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier`)
 **Personas:** tech-writer (examples + cross-link audit), domain-expert (P-rule citation + cross-link validation)
 **Tag:** v0.2.5
 **Requirements:** ATELIER-86, ATELIER-87, ATELIER-88
 ### Wave 1 (parallel — 4 examples, independent; ≤5 concurrent)
 | Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
 |------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
 | 05-01-01 | `examples/good/gitops-pr.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-86 | Good GitOps example; markdown with fenced YAML only (no standalone .yaml); demonstrates P1 Git is Source of Truth + P3 Pull Don't Push + P5 State Immutable and Versioned; cross-link to argocd.md + flux.md + kubernetes/workloads.md |
 | 05-01-02 | `examples/good/ai-ml-reproducibility.md` | tech-writer (ml-engineer consult) | ATELIER-86 | Good AI/ML example; markdown with fenced code only (no model artifacts); demonstrates P1 Reproducibility + P2 Data Versioned + P3 Lineage Traceable + P5 Models are Versioned Artifacts; cross-link to data-versioning.md + serving.md |
 | 05-01-03 | `examples/bad/i18n-string-concat.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-87 | Bad i18n example; cites P3 breached (inline string concatenation, Resources External Not Inline) per IDEATE-07; cross-link to locale-resources.md + formatting.md |
 | 05-01-04 | `examples/bad/compliance-audit-log.md` | tech-writer | ATELIER-87 | Bad compliance example; **TWO breaches in one example** (IDEATE-26, D-044): append-only violation (mutation/deletion of an audit record, P1) AND redaction failure (secret leaked in audit log, P9); cites both P-rules breached; cross-link to audit-logs.md + evidence.md |
 ### Wave 2 (sequential — cross-link audit after all docs exist)
 | Task | File | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
 |------|------|---------|--------|-----------|
 | 05-02-01 | Cross-link audit (all 18 new derived docs across 4 domains) | tech-writer | ATELIER-88 | Review check: every new derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link to a MANIFEST-listed existing domain doc (devops/security/observability/data/kubernetes/infrastructure-as-code); links resolve (IDEATE-08 carried forward); domain-expert validates the cross-link targets are correct (not just present) |
 **Verify (P5):**
 - Structural: 4 new example files exist (all .md)
 - Behavioral: each bad example cites the P-rule(s) breached (i18n: P3; compliance: P1 + P9 two-breach per IDEATE-26); each good example cites the P-rules it demonstrates
 - Security: no standalone .yaml/.po/.rego/model artifacts (deployable artifact mitigation, IDEATE-20, D-020)
 - Quality: all cross-links from the 18 new derived docs resolve to MANIFEST-listed docs; no back-link edits to v0.1/v0.2 content (D-026 extended — one-directional outward)
 ## Phase 6 — Final Review + Ship (N+1)
 **Goal:** Multi-persona review across all v0.3 phases, audit, milestone ship. P6 IS the v0.3 release (NFR → no separate minor tag; v0.2.6 IS the deliverable). Phase-specific personas (platform-engineer, ml-engineer) are removed after milestone completion.
 **Branch:** `atelier/phase/06-final-review-ship` (from `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier`)
 **Personas:** lead-developer (coordinate + ship), domain-expert (review), tech-writer (review), platform-engineer (review, then removed), ml-engineer (review, then removed)
 **Tag:** v0.2.6 (IS the v0.3 milestone release — NFR, no separate minor tag)
 **Requirements:** ATELIER-89, ATELIER-90
 ### Wave 1 (sequential — review → audit → ship → complete)
 | Task | Activity | Persona | REQ-ID | Must-have |
 |------|----------|---------|--------|-----------|
 | 06-01-01 | `ciagent-review` — multi-persona review of all v0.3 changes | lead-developer | ATELIER-89 | Auto-apply P0 fixes; flag P1+ for post-hoc; if P1+ found, fix in this phase; platform-engineer reviews gitops-operators content; ml-engineer reviews ai-ml content (D-023 scope check); domain-expert verifies all 40 new P-rules trace to ≥1 C-rule (no orphans) |
 | 06-01-02 | `ciagent-audit` — reconstruction + discipline | lead-developer | ATELIER-89 | git log matches .ciagent/ files; branch hygiene; commit discipline (every commit has `---ci---` block with `project: atelier`); MANIFEST reconstruction test (every listed doc exists, every existing doc is listed — incl. examples/ per ATELIER-91); matrix row-count test (10 per domain × 17 = 170) |
 | 06-01-03 | `ciagent-ship` — milestone ship | lead-developer | ATELIER-90 | Merge `atelier/phase/06` → `atelier/milestone/v0.3-atelier` → `main`; tag `v0.2.6`; Gitea release with full milestone summary; delete all v0.3 branches (tags preserve history) |
 | 06-01-04 | Complete milestone (REQUIREMENTS + ROADMAP + PERSONAS) | lead-developer | ATELIER-90 | Mark all v0.3 requirements (ATELIER-60..91) `covered`; ROADMAP v0.3 → complete; PERSONAS: remove platform-engineer + ml-engineer (roster returns to 3 active); clear checkpoint |
 **Verify (P6):**
 - Structural: all 32 v0.3 requirements (ATELIER-60..91) marked covered
 - Behavioral: reconstruction test passes (git log ↔ .ciagent/); matrix row-count test passes (170); MANIFEST reconstruction test passes (incl. examples/)
 - Security: audit clean (no critical issues); no regulation-specific compliance content (D-024); no algorithm-design ai-ml content (D-023); no standalone runtime artifacts (D-020)
 - Quality: milestone merged to main, tag v0.2.6 exists, all v0.3 branches deleted; platform-engineer + ml-engineer personas removed (roster = 3)
 ## v0.3 Wave Ordering Summary
 | Phase | Waves | Parallelism |
 |-------|-------|-------------|
 | P0 | (pre-exec) | Sequential stages (specify→clarify→research→ideate→plan→grill) |
 | P1 | 2 | Wave 1 sequential (first-principles), Wave 2 parallel (4 derived docs) |
 | P2 | 2 | Wave 1 sequential (first-principles), Wave 2 parallel (4 derived docs) |
 | P3 | 2 | Wave 1 parallel (2 first-principles), Wave 2 parallel (8 derived docs — 2a i18n + 2b compliance, capped at 5 concurrent) |
 | P4 | 2 | Wave 1 sequential (matrix arbiter), Wave 2 parallel (5 extensions — exactly max_concurrent) |
 | P5 | 2 | Wave 1 parallel (4 examples), Wave 2 sequential (cross-link audit) |
 | P6 | 1 | Sequential: review → audit → ship → complete |
 ## v0.3 Requirements → Phase Mapping
 | Phase | Requirements | Count |
 |-------|-------------|-------|
 | 1 | ATELIER-60..64 | 5 |
 | 2 | ATELIER-65..69 | 5 |
 | 3 | ATELIER-70..79 | 10 |
 | 4 | ATELIER-80..85, 91 | 7 |
 | 5 | ATELIER-86..88 | 3 |
 | 6 | ATELIER-89, 90 | 2 |
 | **Total** | | **32** |
 ## v0.3 Ideation Refinements → Task Bake-In Map
 All 14 accepted ideation refinements (IDEATE-17..30) are baked into the relevant phase tasks as explicit must-have notes:
 | IDEATE-ID | Refinement | Baked Into Task(s) | How |
 |-----------|-----------|-------------------|-----|
 | IDEATE-17 | examples/ in MANIFEST (new req ATELIER-91) | 04-02-05 | MANIFEST gains an examples/ directory listing (closes v0.2 ESC-002 drift) |
 | IDEATE-18 | matrix coverage summary = "17 domains, 170 P-rules" | 04-01-01 | Coverage Summary block + per-domain section count both updated |
 | IDEATE-19 | Core Principle Coverage table update for 4 new domains | 04-02-01 | C1–C8 → domains table extended (C4 adds i18n+gitops; C5 adds ai-ml+compliance+gitops+i18n; etc.) |
 | IDEATE-20 | anti-patterns pre-specify domain violations + v0.3 artifact types | 04-02-04 | .po/.rego/model/signed-manifest artifact types + 16 domain-specific anti-patterns (4 per domain) |
 | IDEATE-21 | ArgoCD vs Flux decision matrix | 01-02-01, 01-02-02 | Both argocd.md and flux.md carry the decision matrix (parallel to v0.2 Helm vs Kustomize) |
 | IDEATE-22 | data versioning tool comparison (DVC/Delta Lake/LakeFS) | 02-02-01 | data-versioning.md comparison table (versioning model, lineage, use-case fit) |
 | IDEATE-23 | policy-as-code engine comparison (OPA/Cedar/Kyverno/Sentinel) | 03-02b-03 | policy-as-code.md comparison table (policy language, evaluation gate, ecosystem) |
 | IDEATE-24 | GitOps push-pattern anti-pattern (violates P3) | 04-02-04 | Named chaos anti-pattern; pre-specified to reject on sight |
 | IDEATE-25 | i18n LTR-only assumption anti-pattern (violates P6) | 04-02-04 | Named chaos anti-pattern; pre-specified to reject on sight |
 | IDEATE-26 | compliance-audit-log bad example = 2 breaches (P1 + P9) | 05-01-04 | examples/bad/compliance-audit-log.md covers append-only violation + redaction failure |
 | IDEATE-27 | AI/ML orphan-model anti-pattern (violates P3 Lineage) | 04-02-04 | Named chaos anti-pattern; deployed prediction with no lineage trace |
 | IDEATE-28 | i18n testing pseudo-locale → testing pyramid tiers | 03-02a-04 | testing-i18n.md maps unit (missing-key), integration (snapshot per locale), e2e (RTL coverage) |
 | IDEATE-29 | compliance evidence.md signed-attestation fenced example | 03-02b-04 | evidence.md includes a fenced Cosign OR in-toto attestation (not prose-only) |
 | IDEATE-30 | ai-ml monitoring-drift.md 3 drift types with detection signals | 02-02-04 | monitoring-drift.md enumerates data/concept/prediction drift, each with a detection signal |
 ## v0.3 Decisions Logged (planning stage)
 | ID | Decision | Rationale | Confidence |
 |----|----------|-----------|------------|
 | D-049 | P3 splits Wave 2 into 2a (i18n) + 2b (compliance) labels but both are the same dependency tier | 8 derived docs are all independent post-Wave-1; the 2a/2b labels organize by domain, the executor schedules ≤5 concurrent per config.json. Avoids inventing a false dependency between i18n and compliance | 0.88 |
 | D-050 | P4 Wave 2 runs exactly 5 concurrent tasks (at the max_concurrent_agents cap) | matrix, coverage, agent-checklist, peer-review-checklist, anti-patterns, manifest = 6 extensions, but anti-patterns (04-02-04) and manifest (04-02-05) are combined under lead-developer for manifest to sequence after anti-patterns content is settled. Net 5 concurrent slots | 0.82 |
 | D-051 | P5 ai-ml-reproducibility.md example authored by tech-writer with ml-engineer consultation (not ml-engineer primary) | ml-engineer is removed after P2 per PERSONAS.md; P5 examples are tech-writer territory. ml-engineer constraints are baked into the task must-have (P1/P2/P3/P5 demonstrated) so the constraint survives the persona | 0.80 |
 | D-052 | P6 review uses platform-engineer + ml-engineer for content review before removal | Phase-specific personas review their authored content one final time in P6 Wave 1, then are removed in 06-01-04. Ensures D-023 (ai-ml scope) and GitOps correctness are checked by the specialist before the roster returns to 3 | 0.84 |
 | D-053 | Vertical-slice integrity: each phase is independently shippable | P1 ships gitops-operators domain docs (matrix rows land in P4 — acceptable because the domain is self-consistent; matrix extension is the traceability closure, not a blocker for the domain's internal consistency). P3 ships 2 domains together (D-022). P4 closes traceability + manifest. P5 closes examples + cross-links. P6 ships the release | 0.86 |
 ## Assumptions Logged
 | # | Assumption | Confidence |
 |---|-----------|------------|
 | A-001 | The v0.2 ESC-002 drift note (examples/ unlisted in MANIFEST) is the only pre-existing manifest drift; no other v0.1/v0.2 docs are unlisted | 0.85 |
 | A-002 | The 4 new domains' P-rules map to existing core C1–C8 without needing new core principles (core is stable at 8) | 0.95 |
 | A-003 | Wave 2 of P3 (8 derived docs) can be scheduled by the executor as 5-then-3 without a hard sub-wave barrier | 0.90 |
 | A-004 | The ArgoCD vs Flux decision matrix (IDEATE-21) is the only decision matrix required in P1 (no separate operators-vs-Helm matrix beyond operators.md's "when to write an operator vs a Helm chart" guidance) | 0.82 |
 | A-005 | P4 anti-patterns (04-02-04) and manifest (04-02-05) can be concurrent because anti-patterns content does not block the manifest's examples/ listing (manifest lists file paths, not anti-pattern content) | 0.80 |
@@ -78,6 +78,48 @@ Build **Atelier** — a first-principles, docs-as-code engineering framework for
 - New examples: `examples/good/terraform-module.md`, `examples/good/k8s-deployment.md`, `examples/bad/` counterparts
 - Cross-links from new domains to existing `devops/`, `security/`, `observability/`, `data/` domains
 ## v0.3 — GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance
 **Milestone type:** NFR (all phases produce docs — no `feat` runtime code)
 **Tag line:** v0.2.x (previous minor from v0.3)
 **Scope:** Extend the domain tree with four new top-level domains covering GitOps/operator patterns, AI/ML, internationalization, and compliance. Plus matrix, review, examples, and cross-link integration. All content is docs-only markdown with illustrative code fences; no runtime/deployable artifacts.
 ### New Domains
 - `domains/gitops-operators/` — platform-automation domain (ArgoCD + Flux + Operators)
  - `first-principles.md` — 10 GitOps/operator principles (P1–P10)
  - Derived: `argocd.md`, `flux.md`, `operators.md`, `progressive-delivery.md`
 - `domains/ai-ml/` — ML engineering domain
  - `first-principles.md` — 10 AI/ML principles (P1–P10)
  - Derived: `data-versioning.md`, `model-evaluation.md`, `serving.md`, `monitoring-drift.md`
 - `domains/i18n/` — internationalization domain
  - `first-principles.md` — 10 i18n principles (P1–P10)
  - Derived: `locale-resources.md`, `formatting.md`, `rtl-bidi.md`, `testing-i18n.md`
 - `domains/compliance/` — compliance/audit domain
  - `first-principles.md` — 10 compliance principles (P1–P10)
  - Derived: `audit-logs.md`, `data-retention.md`, `policy-as-code.md`, `evidence.md`
 ### Cross-Domain Integration
 - Extend `matrix/principles-matrix.md` with 40 new P-rules → core C-rule mappings (10 per new domain)
 - Extend `matrix/domain-coverage.md` with the four new domains
 - Extend `review/agent-checklist.md`, `review/peer-review-checklist.md`, and `review/anti-patterns.md` with new domain sections
 - Update `MANIFEST.md` to list all new v0.3 documents (manifest is authoritative)
 - New examples (good + bad): gitops-pr, ai-ml-reproducibility, i18n-string-concat, compliance-audit-log
 - Cross-links from new domains to existing `devops/`, `security/`, `observability/`, `data/`, `kubernetes/`, `infrastructure-as-code/` domains
 ### Phase Plan (proposed, finalized in PLAN)
 - P0 Pre-Execution: spec, clarify, research, ideate, plan, grill
 - P1 GitOps + Operators domain
 - P2 AI/ML domain
 - P3 i18n + Compliance domains
 - P4 Matrix + Review Integration (40 new mappings, manifest, checklist parity)
 - P5 Examples + Cross-Links
 - P6 Final Review + Ship (IS the v0.3 release → tag v0.2.6)
 NFR milestone: no separate minor tag. The final patch (v0.2.6) IS the v0.3 deliverable.
 ## Key Decisions
 | ID | Decision | Rationale | Confidence |
@@ -97,6 +139,31 @@ Build **Atelier** — a first-principles, docs-as-code engineering framework for
 | D-013 | v0.2 tags run on v0.1.x patch line (prev minor from v0.2) | Per branch-strategy.md: milestone 0.2 → tags v0.1.0..v0.1.5; v0.1.5 IS the v0.2 release (NFR → no separate minor tag) | 0.90 |
 | D-014 | Add phase-specific `platform-engineer` persona for P1–P4 | IaC/k8s domain authoring benefits from a specialist persona with declarative-first/stateless-examples constraints; removed after milestone | 0.82 |
 | D-015 | 4 execution phases (P1–P4) + final phase P5 | P1 IaC domain, P2 k8s domain, P3 matrix+review, P4 examples+cross-links, P5 final review+ship | 0.85 |
 | D-016 | v0.3 covers 4 deferred domains: gitops-operators, ai-ml, i18n, compliance | Carries forward v0.2 deferred ideation (IDEATE-15, IDEATE-16); single milestone groups them to limit release overhead | 0.86 |
 | D-017 | v0.3 tags run on v0.2.x patch line (prev minor from v0.3) | Per branch-strategy.md: milestone 0.3 → tags v0.2.0..v0.2.6; v0.2.6 IS the v0.3 release (NFR → no separate minor tag) | 0.90 |
 | D-018 | v0.3 splits P1 GitOps/Operators, P2 AI/ML, P3 i18n+Compliance, P4 Matrix+Review, P5 Examples, P6 Final | Each domain cluster is a coherent vertical slice; i18n + compliance paired (smaller surface) to balance phase load | 0.84 |
 | D-019 | Reuse `platform-engineer` persona (extended) + add `ml-engineer` phase-specific persona for P2 | GitOps/Operators/k8s reuse platform-engineer; AI/ML benefits from a data/ML-specialist persona with reproducibility/data-lineage constraints; removed after milestone | 0.80 |
 | D-020 | v0.3 remains docs-only (NFR milestone type) | PROJECT.md constraint "no runtime code" preserved; manifests/models/locale resources appear only as illustrative code-fence content in examples | 0.95 |
 | D-021 | GitOps-operators domain groups ArgoCD + Flux + Operators + Progressive Delivery under one first-principles doc | All four share the declarative-source-of-truth reconciliation loop; splitting would fragment the P-rules and duplicate the core principles they trace to | 0.84 |
 | D-022 | i18n + compliance paired in P3 (not separate phases) | Both are smaller-surface domains (4 derived docs each); pairing balances phase load against the heavier P1/P2 single-domain phases | 0.83 |
 | D-023 | AI/ML domain scope = engineering discipline (data versioning, evaluation, serving, drift), NOT algorithm/model design | Atelier is a framework for engineering practice; algorithm choice is domain-knowledge out of scope. Mirrors how iac/k8s docs cover practice not implementation | 0.88 |
 | D-024 | Compliance domain is framework-agnostic (audit logs, retention, policy-as-code, evidence), NOT tied to a specific regulation (GDPR/HIPAA/SOC2) | Regulation-specific docs would bloat the framework and go stale; principles derive from core Security/Correctness and apply across regulations | 0.86 |
 | D-025 | Examples set = 2 good + 2 bad (not 4+4) | v0.3 adds 4 domains; 4+4 examples would unbalance P5. 2 good (gitops-pr, ai-ml-reproducibility) + 2 bad (i18n-string-concat, compliance-audit-log) cover the highest-illustration-value cases; remaining domains covered by cross-links and anti-patterns | 0.80 |
 | D-026 | 40 new matrix mappings (10 per domain × 4 domains) | Consistent with v0.1 (110 mappings / 11 domains = 10) and v0.2 (20 mappings / 2 domains = 10). Each P-rule maps to ≥1 C-rule | 0.92 |
 | D-035 | Add `examples/` directory listing to MANIFEST.md in v0.3 P4 (ATELIER-91) | v0.2 audit escalation ESC-002 note flagged examples/ unlisted; manifest is authoritative, so this is pre-existing drift that v0.3 closes | 0.85 |
 | D-036 | Matrix coverage summary must state post-v0.3 totals (17 domains, 170 P-rules) | Both the summary block and per-domain section count must update; consistent with v0.2's "post-v0.2" summary | 0.93 |
 | D-037 | domain-coverage.md Core Principle Coverage table (C1–C8 → domains) must update for 4 new domains | ATELIER-81 covers the per-domain row schema; this is the complementary C-rule → domains table that also needs the 4 new domains | 0.90 |
 | D-038 | v0.3 anti-patterns must pre-specify domain-specific violations + v0.3 artifact types | Avoids generic "deployable example artifact" only; v0.3 has new artifact types (.po, .rego, model files) and 4 domains × ~4 anti-patterns each | 0.86 |
 | D-039 | ArgoCD vs Flux decision matrix required in argocd.md + flux.md | Parallel to v0.2 Helm vs Kustomize decision matrix (IDEATE-10); both tools share the GitOps model but differ in architecture (App CRD vs composable controllers) | 0.82 |
 | D-040 | Data versioning tool comparison table required in data-versioning.md (DVC/Delta Lake/LakeFS) | Parallel to v0.2 state comparison table (IDEATE-11); three主流 tools with distinct versioning/lineage models | 0.80 |
 | D-041 | Policy-as-code engine comparison table required in policy-as-code.md (OPA/Cedar/Kyverno/Sentinel) | Parallel to v0.2 PSS coverage (IDEATE-12); four engines with distinct policy languages and gate models | 0.81 |
 | D-042 | GitOps push-pattern is a named anti-pattern (violates P3 Pull Don't Push) | Chaos scenario: a "GitOps" example that uses push-based deploy is a fundamental violation; pre-specify to reject on sight | 0.85 |
 | D-043 | i18n LTR-only assumption is a named anti-pattern (violates P6 Text Direction) | Chaos scenario: formatting/layout examples that assume LTR only fail RTL/bidi users; pre-specify to reject | 0.83 |
 | D-044 | compliance-audit-log bad example must cover both append-only violation (P1) and redaction failure (P9) | Two-breach example maximizes illustration value; mirrors v0.2 named-bad-example pattern but doubles the breach surface for the highest-stakes domain | 0.87 |
 | D-045 | AI/ML orphan-model anti-pattern required (deployed prediction with no lineage trace, violates P3) | Chaos scenario: a serving example with no model→training→data lineage is the AI/ML analog of v0.2 orphaned P-rule; pre-specify | 0.84 |
 | D-046 | i18n testing-i18n.md must map pseudo-locale testing to testing pyramid tiers | Avoids generic "test i18n" guidance; maps to unit (missing-key), integration (snapshot per locale), e2e (RTL coverage) | 0.78 |
 | D-047 | compliance evidence.md must include a fenced signed-attestation example (Cosign or in-toto) | Prose-only evidence guidance is weak; a fenced example demonstrates the principle concretely (P6 Evidence Collected Continuously) | 0.80 |
 | D-048 | ai-ml monitoring-drift.md must enumerate 3 drift types (data/concept/prediction) with a detection signal per type | Avoids conflating drift types; each has distinct detection signals and retraining triggers | 0.82 |
 ## Cross-Project References
@@ -124,4 +124,110 @@ All 35 requirements covered. 8 core principles, 11 domains, 110 domain principle
 | IDEATE-13 | backend-enriched | chaos | 0.85 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-48, ATELIER-51 (orphan mitigation) |
 | IDEATE-14 | backend-enriched | chaos | 0.87 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-53, ATELIER-51 (deployable artifact mitigation) |
 | IDEATE-15 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.72 | deferred v0.3 | — (GitOps/operators domain) |
-| IDEATE-16 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.68 | deferred v0.3 | — (ai-ml/i18n/compliance) |
+| IDEATE-16 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.68 | deferred v0.3 | — (ai-ml/i18n/compliance) |
 ## v0.3 Requirements — GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance
 **Milestone type:** NFR (all phases produce docs)
 **Tag line:** v0.2.x (previous minor from v0.3)
 | REQ-ID | Requirement | Priority | Phase | Status |
 |--------|-------------|----------|-------|--------|
 | ATELIER-60 | `domains/gitops-operators/first-principles.md` — 10 GitOps/operator principles (P1–P10) | P0 | 1 | pending |
 | ATELIER-61 | `domains/gitops-operators/argocd.md` — ArgoCD derived doc | P1 | 1 | pending |
 | ATELIER-62 | `domains/gitops-operators/flux.md` — Flux derived doc | P1 | 1 | pending |
 | ATELIER-63 | `domains/gitops-operators/operators.md` — Kubernetes Operators derived doc | P1 | 1 | pending |
 | ATELIER-64 | `domains/gitops-operators/progressive-delivery.md` — progressive delivery derived doc | P1 | 1 | pending |
 | ATELIER-65 | `domains/ai-ml/first-principles.md` — 10 AI/ML principles (P1–P10) | P0 | 2 | pending |
 | ATELIER-66 | `domains/ai-ml/data-versioning.md` — data/model versioning derived doc | P1 | 2 | pending |
 | ATELIER-67 | `domains/ai-ml/model-evaluation.md` — evaluation derived doc | P1 | 2 | pending |
 | ATELIER-68 | `domains/ai-ml/serving.md` — model serving derived doc | P1 | 2 | pending |
 | ATELIER-69 | `domains/ai-ml/monitoring-drift.md` — monitoring/drift derived doc | P1 | 2 | pending |
 | ATELIER-70 | `domains/i18n/first-principles.md` — 10 i18n principles (P1–P10) | P0 | 3 | pending |
 | ATELIER-71 | `domains/i18n/locale-resources.md` — locale resource management derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
 | ATELIER-72 | `domains/i18n/formatting.md` — formatting (dates/numbers/units) derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
 | ATELIER-73 | `domains/i18n/rtl-bidi.md` — RTL/bidi layout derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
 | ATELIER-74 | `domains/i18n/testing-i18n.md` — i18n testing derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
 | ATELIER-75 | `domains/compliance/first-principles.md` — 10 compliance principles (P1–P10) | P0 | 3 | pending |
 | ATELIER-76 | `domains/compliance/audit-logs.md` — audit logging derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
 | ATELIER-77 | `domains/compliance/data-retention.md` — data retention derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
 | ATELIER-78 | `domains/compliance/policy-as-code.md` — policy-as-code derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
 | ATELIER-79 | `domains/compliance/evidence.md` — evidence collection derived doc | P1 | 3 | pending |
 | ATELIER-80 | Extend `matrix/principles-matrix.md` with 40 new P-rules → core C-rule mappings (10 per new domain; review check: row count per domain = 10, each row ≥1 C-rule) | P0 | 4 | pending |
 | ATELIER-81 | Extend `matrix/domain-coverage.md` with gitops-operators, ai-ml, i18n, compliance (row schema: domain, P-count, derived-doc-count, manifest-listed, status) | P1 | 4 | pending |
 | ATELIER-82 | Extend `review/agent-checklist.md` with 4 new domain trigger sections | P1 | 4 | pending |
 | ATELIER-83 | Extend `review/peer-review-checklist.md` with 4 new domain sections (parity with agent-checklist) | P1 | 4 | pending |
 | ATELIER-84 | Extend `review/anti-patterns.md` with 4 new domain violations incl. orphaned P-rule + deployable example artifact | P1 | 4 | pending |
 | ATELIER-85 | Update `MANIFEST.md` to list all new v0.3 documents (manifest authoritative) | P0 | 4 | pending |
 | ATELIER-86 | `examples/good/gitops-pr.md` + `examples/good/ai-ml-reproducibility.md` — 2 good examples (markdown with fenced code only) | P2 | 5 | pending |
 | ATELIER-87 | `examples/bad/i18n-string-concat.md` + `examples/bad/compliance-audit-log.md` — 2 named bad examples (each cites the P-rule breached) | P2 | 5 | pending |
 | ATELIER-88 | Cross-links from new domains to existing devops/security/observability/data/kubernetes/infrastructure-as-code domains (review check: every new derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link to a MANIFEST-listed doc) | P1 | 5 | pending |
 | ATELIER-89 | Final review passes (all v0.3 phases reviewed, audit clean) | P0 | 6 | pending |
 | ATELIER-90 | Milestone v0.3 released (tag v0.2.6, merged to main) | P0 | 6 | pending |
 | ATELIER-91 | Add `examples/` directory listing to `MANIFEST.md` (pre-existing drift from v0.2 audit escalation ESC-002 note: examples/ unlisted; manifest is authoritative) | P1 | 4 | pending |
 ## v0.3 Traceability Matrix
 | Phase | Requirements |
 |-------|-------------|
 | 0 (Pre-Execution) | (governance: spec, clarify, research, ideate, plan) |
 | 1 (GitOps + Operators Domain) | ATELIER-60..ATELIER-64 |
 | 2 (AI/ML Domain) | ATELIER-65..ATELIER-69 |
 | 3 (i18n + Compliance Domains) | ATELIER-70..ATELIER-79 |
 | 4 (Matrix + Review Integration) | ATELIER-80..ATELIER-85, ATELIER-91 |
 | 5 (Examples + Cross-Links) | ATELIER-86..ATELIER-88 |
 | 6 (Final Review + Ship) | ATELIER-89, ATELIER-90 |
 ## v0.3 Ideation Log
 **Generated:** 14 ideas (mechanical: 5, backend-enriched: 7, within-project transfer: 2 merged)
 **Accepted:** 14 (all v0.3-scope, confidence ≥ 0.78, above 0.6 autonomy threshold → auto-accepted)
 **Deferred to v0.4:** 0
 **Rejected:** 0
 | IDEATE-ID | Source | Category | Confidence | Decision | Mapped REQ |
 |-----------|--------|----------|------------|----------|------------|
 | IDEATE-17 | mechanical (audit escalation ESC-002 note) | drift | 0.85 | accepted → new req | ATELIER-91 (examples/ in MANIFEST) |
 | IDEATE-18 | mechanical (MANIFEST + matrix coverage summary) | coverage | 0.93 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-80, ATELIER-85 (v0.3 totals: 17 domains, 170 P-rules) |
 | IDEATE-19 | mechanical (domain-coverage.md Core Principle Coverage table) | coverage | 0.90 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-81 (C-rule count updates for 4 new domains) |
 | IDEATE-20 | mechanical (anti-patterns specificity) | quality | 0.86 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-84 (pre-specify domain anti-patterns + v0.3 artifact types: .po, .rego, model files) |
 | IDEATE-21 | backend-enriched (v0.2 IDEATE-10 pattern transfer) | improvement | 0.82 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-61, ATELIER-62 (ArgoCD vs Flux decision matrix) |
 | IDEATE-22 | backend-enriched (v0.2 IDEATE-11 pattern transfer) | improvement | 0.80 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-66 (data versioning tool comparison: DVC/Delta Lake/LakeFS) |
 | IDEATE-23 | backend-enriched (v0.2 IDEATE-12 pattern transfer) | improvement | 0.81 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-78 (policy-as-code engine comparison: OPA/Cedar/Kyverno/Sentinel) |
 | IDEATE-24 | backend-enriched | chaos | 0.85 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-84 (GitOps push-pattern anti-pattern, violates P3 Pull Don't Push) |
 | IDEATE-25 | backend-enriched | chaos | 0.83 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-84, ATELIER-72 (i18n LTR-only assumption anti-pattern) |
 | IDEATE-26 | backend-enriched | chaos | 0.87 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-87 (compliance-audit-log bad example must cover append-only violation + secret redaction failure, P1 + P9) |
 | IDEATE-27 | backend-enriched | chaos | 0.84 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-84 (AI/ML orphan-model anti-pattern: deployed prediction with no lineage trace) |
 | IDEATE-28 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.78 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-74 (i18n testing-i18n.md pseudo-locale tier mapping to testing/pyramid) |
 | IDEATE-29 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.80 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-79 (compliance evidence.md signed attestation fenced example, Cosign/in-toto) |
 | IDEATE-30 | backend-enriched | improvement | 0.82 | accepted → refines | ATELIER-69 (ai-ml monitoring-drift.md drift-type enumeration: data/concept/prediction with detection signals) |
 ### Refinements Notes (applied to existing reqs at execute time, not changing req rows)
 - **ATELIER-80** (IDEATE-18): matrix coverage summary must read "post-v0.3: 17 domains, 170 P-rules"; update both the summary block and per-domain section count.
 - **ATELIER-81** (IDEATE-19): the "Core Principle Coverage" table (C1–C8 → domains) must be updated with the 4 new domains, not just the per-domain row schema table.
 - **ATELIER-84** (IDEATE-20, IDEATE-24, IDEATE-25, IDEATE-27): anti-patterns extension must include (a) v0.3 deployable artifact types (.po resource files, .rego policy files, model artifacts, signed manifests as standalone files), (b) GitOps push-pattern violation (P3), (c) i18n LTR-only assumption violation (P6), (d) AI/ML orphan-model violation (P3 Lineage). Domain-specific anti-patterns to pre-specify:
  - gitops-operators: push-based deploy (P3), manual kubectl apply on GitOps-managed resource (P8), cluster-admin GitOps robot (P10)
  - ai-ml: unreproducible training run (P1), "the latest" model (P5), notebook in production (P9), orphan model with no lineage (P3)
  - i18n: inline string concatenation (P3), `if (n == 1)` plural branching (P4), LTR-only layout assumption (P6), hand-rolled date formatter (P5)
  - compliance: mutable audit log (P1), shared/generic identity in audit (P7), secret leaked in audit log (P9), manual evidence assembly at audit time (P6)
 - **ATELIER-61/62** (IDEATE-21): argocd.md and flux.md must include an "ArgoCD vs Flux" decision matrix (parallel to v0.2 Helm vs Kustomize in ATELIER-46/47).
 - **ATELIER-66** (IDEATE-22): data-versioning.md must include a tool comparison table (DVC vs Delta Lake vs LakeFS) covering versioning model, lineage, and use-case fit.
 - **ATELIER-78** (IDEATE-23): policy-as-code.md must include an engine comparison table (OPA vs Cedar vs Kyverno vs Sentinel) covering policy language, evaluation gate, and ecosystem.
 - **ATELIER-87** (IDEATE-26): the compliance-audit-log bad example must illustrate both an append-only violation (mutation/deletion of an audit record, P1) AND a redaction failure (secret in audit log, P9) — two breaches in one example.
 - **ATELIER-74** (IDEATE-28): testing-i18n.md must map pseudo-locale testing to the testing pyramid tiers (unit: missing-key detection; integration: snapshot per locale; e2e: RTL coverage).
 - **ATELIER-79** (IDEATE-29): evidence.md must include a fenced signed-attestation example (Cosign or in-toto), not prose-only.
 - **ATELIER-69** (IDEATE-30): monitoring-drift.md must enumerate the three drift types (data drift, concept drift, prediction drift) with a detection signal per type.
 ### Within-Project Pattern Transfer (v0.1 → v0.2 → v0.3) — verified
 | v0.2 Lesson | v0.3 Application | Status |
 |-------------|------------------|--------|
 | IDEATE-09 → ATELIER-59 (peer-review parity) | ATELIER-83 already covers this | ✓ carried forward |
 | IDEATE-13/14 (chaos anti-patterns: orphan P-rule, deployable artifact) | ATELIER-84 + IDEATE-20/24/25/27 extend with v0.3-specific chaos | ✓ extended |
 | IDEATE-08 (cross-link verification: every new derived doc ≥1 outbound cross-link) | ATELIER-88 already covers this | ✓ carried forward |
 | IDEATE-02 (matrix row count = 10 per domain) | ATELIER-80 already covers this | ✓ carried forward |
 | IDEATE-03 (domain-coverage row schema) | ATELIER-81 + IDEATE-19 extend with C-rule coverage table update | ✓ extended |
 | IDEATE-07 (named bad examples cite P-rule breached) | ATELIER-87 + IDEATE-26 refine (two-breach example) | ✓ extended |
 | IDEATE-10/11/12 (decision/comparison tables) | IDEATE-21/22/23 transfer the pattern to 3 v0.3 derived docs | ✓ transferred |
 | v0.2 audit ESC-002 note (examples/ not in MANIFEST) | IDEATE-17 → ATELIER-91 | ✓ addressed |
@@ -215,4 +215,251 @@ See `.ciagent/atelier/PERSONAS.md` for the updated roster. v0.2 adds one phase-s
 4. State and modules get their own derived docs (cross-cutting IaC concerns).
 5. K8s derived docs mirror the k8s concept taxonomy: workloads, networking, storage, rbac, helm, kustomize.
 6. A phase-specific platform-engineer persona is warranted for P1–P4; removed after v0.2.
-7. No runtime code; examples are illustrative markdown only.
+7. No runtime code; examples are illustrative markdown only.
 ---
 # v0.3 Research — GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance
 > Research conducted during v0.3 P0 RESEARCH stage. Informs the four new domains, matrix extension (+40 mappings), and the two phase-specific personas (platform-engineer extended, ml-engineer added). See CLARIFY.md D-021..D-026 for resolved ambiguities and PROJECT.md D-016..D-026 for milestone decisions.
 ## Domain A: GitOps + Operators (ArgoCD, Flux, Operators, Progressive Delivery)
 ### Prior Art
 - **CNCF OpenGitOps Principles v1.0.0** (GitOps Working Group, TAG App Delivery): the canonical 4 principles — **Declarative**, **Versioned and Immutable**, **Pulled Automatically**, **Continuously Reconciled**. Atelier's gitops-operators domain derives its first-principles from these plus the Operator pattern. ([opengitops.dev](https://opengitops.dev/), [github.com/open-gitops/documents](https://github.com/open-gitops/documents))
 - **ArgoCD** (CNCF graduated): pull-based GitOps controller for k8s. Core concepts: Application CRD, sync waves, health/status assessment, diff against live cluster, RBAC, SSO. Declarative desired state from git; reconciled onto the cluster. ([argoCD.readthedocs.io](https://argoCD.readthedocs.io/))
 - **Flux** (CNCF graduated): GitOps Toolkit — a set of composable controllers (source-controller, kustomize-controller, helm-controller, notification-controller). Pulls git/Helm/OCI sources, reconciles via kustomize/helm, emits events. Composable-controller architecture is a C6 (Composability) exemplar. ([fluxcd.io](https://fluxcd.io/))
 - **Kubernetes Operator Pattern** (CNCF): a controller that encodes human operational knowledge as CRDs + control loops. Pattern documented in the k8s docs and "Operator Framework" (Operator SDK, OLM). Domain expertise as code; the deepest expression of k8s P1 Declarative Desired State. ([kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/extend-kubernetes/operator](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/extend-kubernetes/operator/))
 - **Progressive Delivery** — Argo Rollouts, Flagger: canary/blue-green traffic shifting driven by analysis (metrics, counters). Extends k8s rolling updates with metric-gated promotion. Cross-links devops/P5 Progressive Delivery.
 - **Google SRE** (already in Atelier v0.1 observability/devops): reconciliation loops, error budgets, progressive rollout. Cross-cutting influence.
 - **v0.2 in-tree prior art**: `kubernetes/first-principles.md` P1 (Declarative Desired State), P10 (Roll Forward Roll Back); `infrastructure-as-code/first-principles.md` P1 (Declarative Intent), P3 (State is Truth), P9 (Drift is Recoverable). GitOps-operators is the deployment-automation layer above these.
 ### Principles Identified for `gitops-operators/first-principles.md` (P1–P10)
 Each derived from a core C-rule (matrix extensions in P4):
 1. **P1 Git is the Source of Truth** — desired state lives in a versioned, immutable git store; the cluster is a derivative, not an authority. (C1 Correctness, C5 Reversibility)
 2. **P2 Declarative Over Imperative** — express desired cluster state, not the commands to reach it. (C2 Clarity, C3 Simplicity)
 3. **P3 Pull, Don't Push** — agents running inside the target pull desired state; no outside push credentials into the cluster. (C1 Correctness via security, C4 Locality)
 4. **P4 Continuous Reconciliation** — the loop is the primitive; drift is detected and corrected automatically, not on-demand. (C7 Observability, C1 Correctness)
 5. **P5 State is Immutable and Versioned** — every change is a commit; history is the audit trail and the rollback path. (C5 Reversibility)
 6. **P6 Operators Encode Domain Knowledge** — operational expertise lives as CRDs + controllers, not runbooks that humans must remember. (C6 Composability, C2 Clarity)
 7. **P7 Progressive Delivery is Reversible by Construction** — canary/blue-green are staged, metric-gated, and one-command abortable. Promotion without a rollback path is a violation. (C5 Reversibility, C1 Correctness)
 8. **P8 Reconcile, Don't Mutate by Hand** — manual `kubectl apply`/`kubectl edit` on a GitOps-managed resource is an incident; drift back to git is the recovery. (C1 Correctness, C7 Observability)
 9. **P9 Failure is Observable and Surfaced** — sync failures, health degradation, and rollout-stall events emit status + notifications; silent drift is the bug. (C7 Observability)
 10. **P10 Least Privilege Reconciliation** — the controller's credentials are scoped to the namespaces/resources it reconciles; no cluster-admin GitOps robots. (C1 Correctness via security, C8 Economy of trust)
 ### Derived Docs
 - `argocd.md` — Application CRD, App-of-Apps, sync waves, health checks, diffs, RBAC/SSO, multi-cluster, sync windows.
 - `flux.md` — GitOps Toolkit controllers (source, kustomize, helm, notification), composable architecture, HR/Kustomization/HelmRelease CRDs, OCI sources.
 - `operators.md` — Operator pattern, CRDs, controllers, Operator SDK/OLM, when to write an operator vs a Helm chart, scope/responsibility boundaries.
 - `progressive-delivery.md` — Argo Rollouts + Flagger, canary/blue-green, analysis templates (metrics, counters), abort/rollback, cross-link devops/P5.
 ### Cross-Domain Links (one-directional in v0.3, per D-026 extended)
 - `kubernetes/P1 Declarative Desired State` ← gitops P2
 - `kubernetes/P10 Roll Forward Roll Back` ← gitops P7
 - `infrastructure-as-code/P1 Declarative Intent` ← gitops P2
 - `infrastructure-as-code/P3 State is Truth` ← gitops P1, P5
 - `infrastructure-as-code/P9 Drift is Recoverable` ← gitops P4, P8
 - `devops/P1 Reproducibility` ← gitops P1, P5
 - `devops/P4 Rollback First` ← gitops P5, P7
 - `devops/P5 Progressive Delivery` ← gitops P7
 - `devops/P6 Configuration as Code` ← gitops P1, P2
 - `security/secrets` ← gitops P3, P10 (reconciliation credentials)
 - `security/supply-chain` ← gitops P5 (signed/immutable manifest provenance)
 - `observability/metrics` ← gitops P4, P9 (reconciliation + rollout metrics)
 ## Domain B: AI / ML (Engineering Discipline)
 ### Prior Art
 - **Google MLOps / "Hidden Technical Debt in ML Systems"** (Sculley et al., 2015): the foundational paper framing ML systems as software-engineering problems with debt surfaces (data dependencies, configuration, glue code, reproducibility). Atelier's ai-ml domain is the principles-layer response.
 - **DVC / Data Version Control** (iterative.ai): git for data + pipelines; treats datasets, features, and models as versioned artifacts. C5 (Reversibility) and C6 (Composability) exemplar.
 - **MLflow** (Linux Foundation): experiment tracking, model registry, model packaging, deployment stages. Tracking → registry → serving lifecycle.
 - **Kubeflow** (CNCF): k8s-native ML pipelines, training operators, serving (KServe). Brings ML onto the k8s reconciliation model (cross-link kubernetes).
 - **KServe / Seldon Core / BentoML**: model serving runtimes; inference as a scalable, observable service. Cross-link devops/P7 Immutability, observability/metrics.
 - **Evidently AI / Great Expectations**: data drift detection, data quality, model monitoring. C7 (Observability) for ML.
 - **"Machine Learning Operations (MLOps)"** frameworks — Microsoft MLOps, AWS MLOps, Google MLOps maturity model. Converge on: version data, track experiments, evaluate models, serve reproducibly, monitor drift.
 - **v0.2 in-tree prior art**: `kubernetes/first-principles.md` (serving on k8s), `infrastructure-as-code/` (training pipelines as declarative infra), `data/` (schema, migrations — data versioning analog).
 ### Principles Identified for `ai-ml/first-principles.md` (P1–P10)
 Scope per D-023: engineering discipline (data versioning, evaluation, serving, drift), NOT algorithm/model design. Each derived from a core C-rule:
 1. **P1 Reproducibility is the First Class** — every training run is reproducible from pinned data + code + config + environment. Unreproducible runs are unreviewable. (C1 Correctness, C5 Reversibility)
 2. **P2 Data is Versioned, Not Just Code** — datasets, features, and splits are first-class versioned artifacts with lineage; `git` alone is insufficient. (C5 Reversibility, C7 Observability)
 3. **P3 Lineage is Traceable End-to-End** — any deployed prediction traces back through model → training run → dataset → source. No orphan models. (C7 Observability, C1 Correctness)
 4. **P4 Evaluation is Defined Before Training** — metrics, splits, and thresholds are declared a priori; cherry-picking metrics post-hoc is a correctness violation. (C1 Correctness, C2 Clarity)
 5. **P5 Models are Versioned Artifacts** — a model is a pinned, immutable, registry-tracked artifact with a unique identifier; never "the latest." (C5 Reversibility, C6 Composability)
 6. **P6 Serving is Observable** — inference latency, throughput, input distributions, and prediction confidence are first-class signals. Silent serving is a bug. (C7 Observability)
 7. **P7 Drift is Expected and Detected** — data drift, concept drift, and prediction drift are monitored; a drift signal is an incident, not a curiosity. (C7 Observability, C1 Correctness)
 8. **P8 Inference Inputs are Validated** — the model's contract (schema, ranges, types) is enforced at the serving boundary; out-of-contract inputs are rejected, not silently scored. (C1 Correctness via security/input-validation)
 9. **P9 Pipelines Compose, Notebooks Don't** — training/serving flows are composable pipelines with explicit steps and contracts; notebooks are for exploration, not production. (C6 Composability, C2 Clarity)
 10. **P10 Rollback Includes the Model** — a serving rollback restores the prior model artifact, not just the prior code; promotion is reversible at the model layer. (C5 Reversibility)
 ### Derived Docs
 - `data-versioning.md` — DVC/Delta Lake/LakeFS patterns, data lineage, dataset hashing, train/val/test split versioning, cross-link data/migrations.
 - `model-evaluation.md` — metric selection, offline/online eval, holdout integrity, bias/fairness checks (engineering angle), eval as a gate.
 - `serving.md` — KServe/Seldon/BentoML, inference as a service, batching, latency SLAs, canarying models, cross-link kubernetes + devops.
 - `monitoring-drift.md` — Evidently/Great Expectations, drift types (data/concept/prediction), alerting, retraining triggers, cross-link observability/metrics.
 ### Cross-Domain Links (one-directional in v0.3)
 - `data/migrations` ← ai-ml P2 (data versioning ↔ migration discipline)
 - `data/schema-design` ← ai-ml P8 (inference input contract)
 - `observability/metrics` ← ai-ml P6, P7
 - `observability/logging` ← ai-ml P3 (lineage)
 - `devops/P1 Reproducibility` ← ai-ml P1
 - `devops/P7 Immutability` ← ai-ml P5 (model images)
 - `devops/P5 Progressive Delivery` ← ai-ml P10 (model canary)
 - `security/input-validation` ← ai-ml P8
 - `security/secrets` ← ai-ml P8 (serving credentials)
 - `performance/backend` ← ai-ml P6 (serving latency)
 - `kubernetes/workloads` ← ai-ml P9 (serving on k8s)
 ## Domain C: Internationalization (i18n)
 ### Prior Art
 - **Unicode / ICU / CLDR** (Unicode Consortium): the foundation — ICU (International Components for Unicode) for formatting/collation, CLDR (Common Locale Data Repository) for locale data. The de-facto source for date/number/currency/plural/relative-time formatting. ([unicode.org/cldr](https://cldr.unicode.org/), [icu.unicode.org](https://icu.unicode.org/))
 - **W3C Internationalization** (W3C i18n WG): the canonical web i18n guidance — "Internationalization techniques", "Language tags in HTML and XML", bidi/RTL authoring. Cross-links WCAG for accessibility-of-locale. ([w3.org/International](https://www.w3.org/International/))
 - **RFC 5646 / BCP 47** — language tags (`en-US`, `ar-EG`, `zh-Hans-CN`). The locale identifier standard.
 - **RFC 9229 / RFC 9230** (and earlier BCP 47 extensions) — Unicode locale extensions (`-u-`).
 - **gettext / ICU MessageFormat / FormatJS / react-intl / i18next / Fluent (Mozilla)** — message-format libraries; ICU MessageFormat is the cross-ecosystem baseline for plural/gender/select. Fluent pioneered "localization 2.0" with asymmetric translations.
 - **JavaScript Intl API** — browser-native formatting built on ICU/CLDR; the runtime baseline.
 - **WCAG 2.1 AA** (already in Atelier uiux/accessibility): cross-cutting — locale support is an a11y concern for non-Latin-script users; RTL layout is a UI-correctness concern.
 - **Google i18n + Mozilla L10n guides** — operational practice (string extraction, pseudo-locale testing, RTL testing).
 - **v0.2/v0.1 in-tree prior art**: `uiux/` (accessibility, components, copywriting — i18n's consumer), `testing/` (fixtures, pyramid — i18n testing parallels), `api/error-responses` (localized API errors).
 ### Principles Identified for `i18n/first-principles.md` (P1–P10)
 Each derived from a core C-rule:
 1. **P1 Source Language is a Locale, Not the Default** — the developer's language is one locale among many, not the "neutral" form. Strings are extracted from day one. (C2 Clarity, C1 Correctness)
 2. **P2 Locale Identifiers are Standardized** — use BCP 47 language tags; no ad-hoc locale codes. (C2 Clarity, C6 Composability)
 3. **P3 Resources are External, Not Inline** — user-facing strings live in locale resource files, never concatenated inline in code. (C4 Locality, C6 Composability)
 4. **P4 Plural and Gender are Parameterized** — use ICU MessageFormat (or equivalent) for plural/gender/select; never `if (n == 1)` branching. (C1 Correctness, C6 Composability)
 5. **P5 Formatting is Locale-Aware** — dates, times, numbers, currencies, units via ICU/CLDR/`Intl`; never hand-rolled formatters. (C1 Correctness, C7 Observability of format correctness)
 6. **P6 Text Direction is a Layout Primitive** — RTL/bidi is a first-class layout concern, not a CSS afterthought; logical properties (`start`/`end`) over physical (`left`/`right`). (C1 Correctness, C4 Locality)
 7. **P7 Layout Accommodates Expansion** — translated text expands/contracts; layouts are flexible (no fixed pixel widths for text). (C8 Economy of rework, C3 Simplicity)
 8. **P8 Pseudo-Locales Test Early** — test with pseudo-locales (accented, lengthened, RTL-mirrored) before real translations arrive. (C7 Observability, C5 Reversibility of finding bugs late)
 9. **P9 Images and Icons are Cultural** — icons, colors, and imagery are locale-sensitive; avoid locale-bound symbols as universal. (C1 Correctness, C2 Clarity)
 10. **P10 Translation is Reversible and Versioned** — resource files are versioned; a bad translation is a rollback, not a hot-patch. (C5 Reversibility)
 ### Derived Docs
 - `locale-resources.md` — resource file formats (.po/.pot, JSON, Fluent FTL, ICU Resource Bundle), key naming, namespaces, fallback chains, extraction tooling.
 - `formatting.md` — ICU/CLDR/`Intl` for dates, times, numbers, currencies, units, relative time, plural rules; BCP 47 tags; cross-link api/error-responses for localized errors.
 - `rtl-bidi.md` — logical vs physical CSS properties, bidi algorithm (UAX #9), `dir` attribute, mirroring, common pitfalls (icons, numbers in RTL), cross-link uiux/components + uiux/accessibility.
 - `testing-i18n.md` — pseudo-locales, snapshot testing per locale, RTL coverage, missing-key detection, cross-link testing/fixtures + testing/pyramid.
 ### Cross-Domain Links (one-directional in v0.3)
 - `uiux/accessibility` ← i18n P6 (RTL/bidi is an a11y concern for non-Latin users)
 - `uiux/components` ← i18n P6, P7
 - `uiux/copywriting` ← i18n P1, P3
 - `testing/fixtures` ← i18n P8
 - `testing/pyramid` ← i18n P8
 - `api/error-responses` ← i18n P5 (localized error messages)
 - `data/schema-design` ← i18n P2, P3 (locale data shapes)
 ## Domain D: Compliance (Audit, Retention, Policy-as-Code, Evidence)
 ### Prior Art
 **Note (D-024):** the compliance domain is framework-agnostic — it abstracts regulation-specific requirements (GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, PCI-DSS, NIST 800-53, ISO 27001) into engineering principles. No regulation-specific docs; they would bloat the framework and go stale.
 - **NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) / NIST 800-53** — controls catalog (audit, retention, evidence, policy). Atelier abstracts the *principles*, not the controls.
 - **SOC 2 (AICPA) Trust Services Criteria** — Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, Privacy. Audit logs, retention, and evidence are explicit criteria.
 - **GDPR / CCPA** — data subject rights, retention limits, lawful basis. Abstracted to "retention is a function of policy, not storage."
 - **OWASP AppSec / ASVS** — already in Atelier security domain; compliance extends to auditability of security controls.
 - **Open Policy Agent (OPA) / Rego, Cedar (AWS), HashiCorp Sentinel, Kyverno** — policy-as-code engines; policy evaluated as a gate, not a document. C6 (Composability) + C1 (Correctness) exemplars. ([openpolicyagent.org](https://www.openpolicyagent.org/), [kyverno.io](https://kyverno.io/))
 - **Cosign / Sigstore / in-toto** — signed attestations and provenance; evidence-as-artifact. Cross-link security/supply-chain.
 - **Google Cloud Audit Logs / AWS CloudTrail / Azure Activity Log** — the canonical audit-log patterns; immutable, append-only, queryable, time-ordered.
 - **v0.2/v0.1 in-tree prior art**: `security/` (authorization, secrets, supply-chain), `observability/` (logging, metrics, tracing — audit logs are structured logging), `data/` (schema, migrations — retention schema), `infrastructure-as-code/` (policy-as-code parallels declarative IaC), `kubernetes/` (rbac — audit subject identity).
 ### Principles Identified for `compliance/first-principles.md` (P1–P10)
 Each derived from a core C-rule. Framework-agnostic per D-024:
 1. **P1 Audit Logs are Append-Only** — audit records are immutable once written; deletion or mutation is itself an auditable incident. (C1 Correctness, C5 Reversibility)
 2. **P2 Every Significant Action is Logged** — the set of auditable actions is defined a priori; "we forgot to log it" is a violation. Auth changes, data access, config changes, policy changes. (C7 Observability, C1 Correctness)
 3. **P3 Retention is Policy, Not Storage** — data lifetime is declared and enforced; deletion at end-of-life is a feature, not a failure. (C5 Reversibility, C8 Economy of storage)
 4. **P4 Policy is Code** — compliance policy is expressed in versioned, reviewable, testable code (OPA/Cedar/Kyverno), not in spreadsheets or prose. (C6 Composability, C2 Clarity)
 5. **P5 Policy is Evaluated as a Gate** — policy violations block before the action, not after the audit; admission/CI/CD-time enforcement. (C1 Correctness, C5 Reversibility)
 6. **P6 Evidence is Collected Continuously** — evidence of compliance (logs, configs, scans, attestations) is gathered as a byproduct of operation, not assembled manually at audit time. (C7 Observability, C3 Simplicity of audit)
 7. **P7 Identity is Attributable** — every logged action traces to an authenticated principal; shared/generic identities are violations. (C1 Correctness via security, C7 Observability)
 8. **P8 Subject Access is Honored** — data-subject rights (access, export, deletion) are operations with defined contracts and audit trails; not ad-hoc. (C1 Correctness, C5 Reversibility)
 9. **P9 Secrets and Sensitive Data are Redacted in Audit** — audit logs themselves must not leak secrets; redaction is structural, not opportunistic. (C1 Correctness via security, C3 Simplicity)
 10. **P10 Compliance Posture is Observable** — the system reports its own compliance state (drift from policy, open violations, retention status); silent non-compliance is the bug. (C7 Observability, C1 Correctness)
 ### Derived Docs
 - `audit-logs.md` — append-only log patterns, structured audit events, CloudTrail/Cloud-Audit-Log conventions, queryability, retention of logs themselves, cross-link observability/logging + security/authorization.
 - `data-retention.md` — retention policies as code, lifecycle rules, deletion as a feature, GDPR/CCPA abstracted, retention vs. backup distinction, cross-link data/migrations.
 - `policy-as-code.md` — OPA/Cedar/Sentinel/Kyverno patterns, policy as a CI/CD + admission gate, policy testing, versioning policy, cross-link infrastructure-as-code (declarative intent) + kubernetes (admission).
 - `evidence.md` — evidence collection as a byproduct, signed attestations (Cosign/in-toto), audit-ready export, provenance, cross-link security/supply-chain + observability/metrics.
 ### Cross-Domain Links (one-directional in v0.3)
 - `security/authorization` ← compliance P7 (attributable identity)
 - `security/secrets` ← compliance P9 (redaction)
 - `security/supply-chain` ← compliance P6, evidence.md (signed attestations)
 - `observability/logging` ← compliance P1, P2 (audit logs = structured logging)
 - `observability/metrics` ← compliance P10 (compliance posture metrics)
 - `observability/tracing` ← compliance P6 (evidence from distributed traces)
 - `data/schema-design` ← compliance P3 (retention schema)
 - `data/migrations` ← compliance P3 (retention migration discipline)
 - `infrastructure-as-code/P1 Declarative Intent` ← compliance P4 (policy-as-code)
 - `infrastructure-as-code/P3 State is Truth` ← compliance P10 (compliance posture truth)
 - `kubernetes/rbac` ← compliance P7 (audit subject identity)
 - `devops/P6 Configuration as Code` ← compliance P4 (policy as code)
 ## Architectural Fit (v0.1/v0.2 Contract Preservation)
 - **Hierarchy preserved:** all four new domains depend on `core/`; their P-rules trace to C1–C8 via the matrix. No lateral authority.
 - **10 P-rules per domain** (per D-018, D-030, D-026): consistent with v0.1 (11 domains) and v0.2 (2 domains). v0.3 adds 40 new P-rules → matrix grows 130 → 170.
 - **Manifest authoritative:** all new documents added to `MANIFEST.md` in P4. Unlisted = not part of the framework.
 - **No runtime code** (per D-020, PROJECT.md constraint): examples are illustrative markdown with code fences only. No `.yaml` manifests, `.po` resource files, model artifacts, policy `.rego` files, or deployable artifacts as standalone files — only fenced code blocks inside `.md` files.
 - **Conflict resolution unchanged:** matrix extended, not replaced. Core precedence (C1 > C2 > ... > C8) governs any new vs existing rule conflict. Compliance rules tracing to C1 (Correctness) inherit C1's non-tradeable status where they overlap with security (per core/conflict-resolution.md §6).
 - **Cross-links one-directional** (D-026 extended): new domains link outward to existing; existing domains unchanged in v0.3 (no back-link edits to v0.1/v0.2 content).
 ## Prior Art Position (v0.3 extension)
 Existing GitOps/AI-ML/i18n/compliance guidance (OpenGitOps principles, ArgoCD/Flux docs, Operator pattern, MLOps maturity models, ICU/CLDR, W3C i18n, NIST/SOC 2, OPA/Kyverno) state practices and controls but none map every domain rule back to a small set of universal core principles. Atelier's v0.3 contribution is the same differentiation as v0.1 and v0.2: **traceable principle hierarchy with a join table**. The four new domains add 40 P-rules, each traced to ≥1 core C-rule, extending the matrix from 130 to 170 domain principles across 13 → 17 domains.
 ## v0.3 Persona Assessment
 See `.ciagent/atelier/PERSONAS.md` for the updated roster. v0.3 adds two phase-specific personas (per D-019, D-020):
 - **platform-engineer** (phase-specific, extended from v0.2): domain = infrastructure/platform-automation; territory = `domains/gitops-operators/**`, gitops examples; constraints add "source-of-truth is git" and "reconciliation loop is the primitive"; active for P1 GitOps/Operators only; removed after v0.3 completes.
 - **ml-engineer** (phase-specific, new): domain = machine-learning engineering; territory = `domains/ai-ml/**`, `examples/good/ai-ml-reproducibility.md`; constraints = ["reproducibility is non-negotiable", "data lineage is traceable", "trace to core", "10 P-rules per domain", "no runtime code", "engineering discipline not algorithm design (D-023)"]; active for P2 AI/ML only; removed after v0.3 completes.
 - **i18n (P3) + compliance (P3)** covered by tech-writer + domain-expert (D-022 — no new personas; both domains are smaller-surface and within the existing personas' competence).
 ## v0.3 Risks and Mitigations
 | Risk | Mitigation |
 |------|-----------|
 | New P-rules orphaned from core (no matrix trace) | P4 extends matrix; domain-expert persona verifies every new P-rule traces to ≥1 C-rule before sign-off |
 | GitOps-operators overlaps kubernetes/infrastructure-as-code (declarative, state, drift) | Cross-links one-directional (D-026); each domain owns its angle (k8s P1 desired-state vs gitops P1 git-as-source-of-truth vs iac P3 state-is-truth) |
 | AI/ML domain drifts into algorithm/model-design (out of scope per D-023) | ml-engineer persona constraint "engineering discipline not algorithm design"; review/agent-checklist gains an ai-ml scope check in P4 |
 | Compliance domain bloats into regulation-specific docs (GDPR/SOC2) | D-024 framework-agnostic; review check in P4 rejects regulation-specific content |
 | i18n and compliance overlap on "retention of locale data" | Each owns its angle: i18n P10 (translation versioning) vs compliance P3 (data retention policy) |
 | Examples become runtime artifacts (model files, .rego, .po) | persona constraints "no runtime code"; examples are markdown with fenced code only; P5 review check |
 | Persona explosion (5 active in v0.3) | Both new personas are phase-specific and removed post-milestone; roster returns to 3 |
 | Matrix row-count verification (40 new mappings, 10 per domain) | D-026 review check: row count per domain = 10, each row ≥1 C-rule, executed in P4 |
 ## v0.3 Conclusions
 1. Four new top-level domains extend the framework without breaking the v0.1/v0.2 contract.
 2. 40 new P-rules (10 per domain) all trace to core C1–C8 — matrix extends from 130 to 170 across 13 → 17 domains.
 3. GitOps-operators unifies ArgoCD/Flux/Operators/Progressive Delivery under the shared declarative-source-of-truth reconciliation loop (D-021) — splitting would fragment the P-rules.
 4. AI/ML is scoped to engineering discipline (D-023): data versioning, evaluation, serving, drift — NOT algorithm design. Reproducibility and lineage are the non-negotiables.
 5. i18n is grounded in ICU/CLDR + BCP 47 + W3C i18n; the source language is a locale, not a default.
 6. Compliance is framework-agnostic (D-024): audit/retention/policy-as-code/evidence abstract NIST/SOC2/GDPR into principles that derive from core Security/Correctness/Observability.
 7. Two phase-specific personas (platform-engineer extended, ml-engineer added); both removed post-v0.3.
 8. No runtime code; examples are illustrative markdown only.
@@ -76,9 +76,50 @@ NFR milestone: no separate minor tag. The final patch (v0.1.5) IS the v0.2 deliv
 - 2 deferred to v0.3 (GitOps/operators domain; ai-ml/i18n/compliance domains)
 - See `.ciagent/atelier/REQUIREMENTS.md` "v0.2 Ideation Log" for the full table
 ## Milestone: v0.3 — GitOps + Operators + AI/ML + i18n + Compliance (ACTIVE)
 **Milestone type:** NFR (all phases produce docs — no `feat` code)
 **Tag line:** v0.2.x (previous minor from v0.3)
 **Phases:** P0 (pre-execution) + P1–P5 (execution) + P6 (final review+ship)
 | Phase | Name | Type | Status | Key Deliverables |
 |-------|------|------|--------|------------------|
 | 0 | Pre-Execution | docs | active | Spec, clarify, research, ideate, plan, PERSONAS.md (extends platform-engineer, adds ml-engineer) |
 | 1 | GitOps + Operators Domain | docs | pending | domains/gitops-operators/{first-principles, argocd, flux, operators, progressive-delivery}.md |
 | 2 | AI/ML Domain | docs | pending | domains/ai-ml/{first-principles, data-versioning, model-evaluation, serving, monitoring-drift}.md |
 | 3 | i18n + Compliance Domains | docs | pending | domains/i18n/{first-principles, locale-resources, formatting, rtl-bidi, testing-i18n}.md, domains/compliance/{first-principles, audit-logs, data-retention, policy-as-code, evidence}.md |
 | 4 | Matrix + Review Integration | docs | pending | matrix/principles-matrix.md (+40 mappings), matrix/domain-coverage.md (incl. C-rule coverage table update), review/{agent-checklist, peer-review-checklist, anti-patterns}.md, MANIFEST.md (+ examples/ listing per ATELIER-91) |
 | 5 | Examples + Cross-Links | docs | pending | examples/good + examples/bad for 4 domains, cross-links to devops/security/observability/data/k8s/iac |
 | 6 | Final Review + Ship | docs | pending | Review passed, audit clean, milestone merged to main, tag v0.2.6 |
 ## v0.3 Phase Tag Mapping
 Per branch-strategy.md, milestone `v0.3` tags run on the `v0.2.x` patch line:
 | Phase | Tag | Notes |
 |-------|-----|-------|
 | P0 | v0.2.0 | Pre-execution release |
 | P1 | v0.2.1 | GitOps + Operators domain |
 | P2 | v0.2.2 | AI/ML domain |
 | P3 | v0.2.3 | i18n + Compliance domains |
 | P4 | v0.2.4 | Matrix + review integration |
 | P5 | v0.2.5 | Examples + cross-links |
 | P6 | v0.2.6 | Final review + ship — **IS the v0.3 milestone release** |
 NFR milestone: no separate minor tag. The final patch (v0.2.6) IS the v0.3 deliverable.
 ## v0.3 Ideation Outcome
 - 14 ideas generated (mechanical 5, backend-enriched 7, within-project transfer 2 merged)
 - 14 accepted (all v0.3-scope, confidence ≥ 0.78, above 0.6 autonomy threshold → auto-accepted)
 - 1 new requirement added: ATELIER-91 (examples/ in MANIFEST — pre-existing drift from v0.2 audit escalation)
 - 13 refinements to existing reqs ATELIER-61..90 (decision matrices, chaos anti-patterns, drift-type enumeration, etc.)
 - 0 deferred to v0.4
 - See `.ciagent/atelier/REQUIREMENTS.md` "v0.3 Ideation Log" for the full table
 ## Future Milestones
- **v0.3** (candidates from ideation): `domains/gitops-operators/` (ArgoCD, Flux), `domains/ai-ml/`, `domains/i18n/`, `domains/compliance/` per spec Part 6 and v0.2 deferred ideation.
+- **v0.4** (candidates): `domains/edge/`, `domains/quantum/`, language-specific derived docs, tooling adapters (linters), translation/localization of framework docs.
 ## Success Criteria
@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@
    {
      "slug": "atelier",
      "name": "Atelier",
-      "milestone": "v0.2",
+      "milestone": "v0.3",
-      "status": "complete"
+      "status": "active"
    }
  ],
  "active_project": "atelier",