generated from john/python-template
Ver1 Implementation Plan, and a detailed impl plan for step 1.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,309 @@
|
||||
# Step 1 Implementation Plan: Architecture Consolidation
|
||||
|
||||
## Purpose
|
||||
|
||||
Align the implemented MVP codebase with the production architecture and V1 constraints documented in:
|
||||
|
||||
- `docs/architecture.md`
|
||||
- `docs/requirements.md`
|
||||
- `docs/error_handling.md`
|
||||
- `docs/index.md`
|
||||
- `docs/intent.md`
|
||||
- `docs/ver1/ver1.md` (Step 1)
|
||||
|
||||
This step hardens architecture boundaries and ownership without expanding product scope.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## MCP Skill and Guide Inputs Incorporated
|
||||
|
||||
This plan explicitly incorporates patterns and guardrails from john-stream-mcp resources:
|
||||
|
||||
1. `resource://skills/fastapi-uv-docker/document`
|
||||
- App factory and lifespan ownership
|
||||
- Health endpoint and cloud-native baseline expectations
|
||||
- Environment-driven configuration and startup discipline
|
||||
|
||||
2. `resource://skills/fastapi-async-sqlalchemy-modernization/document`
|
||||
- Current-state gap audit first
|
||||
- Target runtime model before refactor
|
||||
- Explicit resource lifecycle ownership
|
||||
- Transaction/session boundary clarity
|
||||
- Phased migration with rollback points
|
||||
|
||||
3. `resource://skills/nicegui/document`
|
||||
- Clear dependency direction
|
||||
- UI/page registration as composition, not business logic container
|
||||
- Async responsiveness and boundary separation
|
||||
|
||||
4. `resource://prompts/greenfield-architecture/document`
|
||||
- Pattern-comparison-first planning
|
||||
- Explicit tradeoffs and staged implementation
|
||||
- Output contract with risks, open questions, and next steps
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Current-State Gap Summary (Architecture vs Implementation)
|
||||
|
||||
Based on docs and current `src/transcription` code:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **REQ-7 gap (lifespan-owned resources)**
|
||||
- DB engine/session factory are module globals in `db.py`, not app lifespan-owned.
|
||||
- Worker thread lifecycle is owned by lifespan (good), but DB/provider resource ownership is mixed.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **REQ-10 gap (explicit opt-in schema bootstrap)**
|
||||
- `create_all()` is executed unconditionally on startup in `app.py`.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Data store target gap (REQ-9 + architecture baseline)**
|
||||
- Runtime still defaults to SQLite MVP setup; production architecture targets PostgreSQL baseline with optional MongoDB.
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Layering clarity gap (architecture layer model)**
|
||||
- Boundaries exist but are not yet formally enforced (interface/app/domain/infra dependency rules are implicit, not codified).
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Decision record gap**
|
||||
- No ADR set documenting key V1 architectural decisions and deviations from MVP.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope for Step 1
|
||||
|
||||
### In scope
|
||||
1. Produce architecture conformance audit and decision records.
|
||||
2. Define and implement target runtime ownership model for core resources.
|
||||
3. Establish explicit schema bootstrap policy (opt-in in production paths).
|
||||
4. Consolidate module boundaries and dependency direction rules.
|
||||
5. Update architecture docs to reflect implemented reality and V1 trajectory.
|
||||
|
||||
### Out of scope
|
||||
- Full async SQLAlchemy rewrite (plan and seams only if deferred)
|
||||
- MongoDB feature implementation
|
||||
- New user-facing features
|
||||
- Major worker architecture replacement (in-process worker remains baseline)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Target Architecture Decisions for V1
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Keep modular monolith topology** (FastAPI + NiceGUI + in-process worker).
|
||||
2. **Preserve container-light simplicity guardrails** from `architecture.md`.
|
||||
3. **Move runtime ownership to lifespan** for:
|
||||
- DB engine/session factory lifecycle
|
||||
- Worker runtime resources
|
||||
- Provider client factory/config lifecycle
|
||||
4. **Adopt explicit schema bootstrap policy**:
|
||||
- Dev/test: opt-in auto-bootstrap allowed
|
||||
- Production: startup must not mutate schema implicitly
|
||||
5. **Formalize boundary map**:
|
||||
- Interface (`api`, `ui`) -> Application (`services`) -> Domain (`models/rules`) -> Infrastructure (`db`, `providers`)
|
||||
- No reverse imports
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Detailed Work Breakdown
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase A — Architecture Audit and Baseline Freeze
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **A1. Produce architecture conformance matrix**
|
||||
- Map each architecture section to current modules/files.
|
||||
- Classify each row: `aligned`, `partial`, `not aligned`.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **A2. Produce REQ-7/REQ-9/REQ-10 focused gap report**
|
||||
- Explicitly capture current vs required state.
|
||||
- Include operational risk if left unresolved.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **A3. Freeze MVP architecture baseline**
|
||||
- Record current baseline behavior and known temporary shortcuts.
|
||||
- Link this baseline from `docs/ver1/ver1.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- `docs/ver1/ver1-step1-audit.md` (or equivalent section in this doc)
|
||||
- Architecture conformance table
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- No architecture changes begin before gap matrix and baseline are approved.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase B — Resource Ownership Consolidation (Lifespan-Centric)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **B1. Define runtime resource ownership contract**
|
||||
- `app.py` lifespan owns resource initialization and cleanup order.
|
||||
- `app.state` carries resource handles/factories.
|
||||
- No hidden module-global side-effect initialization for runtime resources.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **B2. Refactor DB ownership model**
|
||||
- Replace module-global engine singleton pattern with lifespan-initialized resource model.
|
||||
- Define one canonical session-factory access path for app/worker/services.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **B3. Normalize worker dependencies**
|
||||
- Ensure worker uses lifespan-owned resources/factories rather than implicit globals.
|
||||
- Preserve deterministic startup/shutdown behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **B4. Define provider adapter ownership**
|
||||
- Provider client creation strategy is centralized and lifecycle-aware.
|
||||
- Avoid per-call hidden client construction when unnecessary.
|
||||
|
||||
### MCP-Guided Guardrails
|
||||
- Use explicit lifecycle composition patterns from `fastapi-async-sqlalchemy-modernization`.
|
||||
- Maintain app-factory + lifespan structure per `fastapi-uv-docker`.
|
||||
- Keep UI registration as composition only per `nicegui`.
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Core runtime resources have one owner and one cleanup path.
|
||||
- No critical resource has ambiguous ownership.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase C — Schema Bootstrap Policy (REQ-10 Alignment)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **C1. Define environment-aware bootstrap policy**
|
||||
- `auto_create_schema` (or equivalent) disabled in production by default.
|
||||
- Startup schema mutation is explicit and intentional.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **C2. Split startup responsibilities**
|
||||
- App startup performs health-critical initialization only.
|
||||
- Schema bootstrap path is moved to explicit command/flag workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **C3. Update deployment/runbook docs**
|
||||
- Document migration/bootstrap flow for dev, staging, prod.
|
||||
- Ensure policy is testable and auditable.
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Normal production startup path does not call schema auto-create implicitly.
|
||||
- Bootstrap behavior is explicit and documented.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase D — Module Boundary Enforcement
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **D1. Publish dependency direction rules**
|
||||
- Allowed import directions across `api`, `ui`, `services`, `models/domain`, `db/providers`.
|
||||
- Explicitly disallow reverse dependencies.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **D2. Reconcile package map with docs**
|
||||
- Ensure docs’ architecture elements match real package layout and naming.
|
||||
- Update docs where intentional deviations remain.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **D3. Isolate cross-layer responsibilities**
|
||||
- Keep API/UI presentation concerns out of services.
|
||||
- Keep provider/DB specifics out of interface layer.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **D4. Add lightweight architecture checks**
|
||||
- Add static/import checks and/or review checklist in CI/review process.
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Boundary rules are documented and applied.
|
||||
- Architectural drift can be detected during review/CI.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase E — Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **E1. Create ADR index**
|
||||
- Add `docs/adr/README.md` with template and status model.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **E2. Record minimum V1 ADR set**
|
||||
1. Runtime ownership model (lifespan-owned resources)
|
||||
2. Schema bootstrap policy (explicit vs implicit)
|
||||
3. Persistence baseline (PostgreSQL target; SQLite transition strategy)
|
||||
4. Worker topology (in-process for V1, extension path preserved)
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **E3. Cross-link ADRs**
|
||||
- Link from architecture and V1 docs.
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Major architecture decisions are explicit, versioned, and discoverable.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase F — Documentation Consolidation
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **F1. Update `docs/architecture.md`**
|
||||
- Reflect real implementation and V1 target state separately.
|
||||
- Mark transitional choices clearly.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **F2. Update `docs/index.md` navigation consistency**
|
||||
- Ensure architecture/readme references match actual docs/files.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **F3. Update `docs/requirements.md` traceability notes**
|
||||
- Mark REQ-7/REQ-10 status and verification approach after consolidation.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] **F4. Add Step 1 result summary**
|
||||
- Create `docs/ver1/ver1-step1-results.md` after implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Docs are internally consistent and match runtime architecture reality.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Verification Plan
|
||||
|
||||
## Architecture Verification Matrix (Step 1)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Inspection**
|
||||
- Resource ownership map exists and matches code.
|
||||
- Schema bootstrap policy is explicit and environment-aware.
|
||||
- ADRs exist for each key architecture decision.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Automated checks**
|
||||
- Existing test suite remains green.
|
||||
- New/updated tests validate startup policy (no implicit schema mutation in production mode).
|
||||
- Import/dependency-direction checks pass (if introduced).
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Demonstration**
|
||||
- App starts in dev mode with explicit expected behavior.
|
||||
- App starts in production mode without mutating schema implicitly.
|
||||
- Worker lifecycle starts/stops cleanly with app lifespan.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Risks and Mitigations
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Risk:** Refactor destabilizes MVP behavior
|
||||
**Mitigation:** Phase changes with small PRs and regression checks after each phase.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Risk:** Over-rotation into premature async rewrite
|
||||
**Mitigation:** Keep this step focused on lifecycle ownership and boundaries; defer full async migration unless required.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Risk:** Schema policy changes break local DX
|
||||
**Mitigation:** Keep explicit dev bootstrap path simple and documented.
|
||||
|
||||
4. **Risk:** Boundary rules become “doc only”
|
||||
**Mitigation:** Add CI/review enforcement and architecture checklist.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended Implementation Order
|
||||
|
||||
1. Phase A — Audit and baseline freeze
|
||||
2. Phase B — Resource ownership consolidation
|
||||
3. Phase C — Schema bootstrap policy
|
||||
4. Phase D — Boundary enforcement
|
||||
5. Phase E — ADR authoring
|
||||
6. Phase F — Documentation consolidation
|
||||
|
||||
This order minimizes risk: diagnose first, then refactor ownership, then lock policy, then enforce boundaries, and finally finalize docs.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 1 Completion Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture conformance matrix approved.
|
||||
- [ ] REQ-7 ownership gaps resolved or explicitly deferred with owner/date.
|
||||
- [ ] REQ-10 explicit bootstrap policy implemented and verified.
|
||||
- [ ] Dependency direction rules documented and enforced.
|
||||
- [ ] ADR set created for all major Step 1 decisions.
|
||||
- [ ] Architecture and index docs updated to match implementation.
|
||||
- [ ] Full test suite passes after consolidation.
|
||||
- [ ] `docs/ver1/ver1-step1-results.md` created with evidence and residual risks.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Handoff to Step 2
|
||||
|
||||
Once Step 1 completes, Step 2 (Error Handling & Reliability Hardening) can proceed on stable architecture seams:
|
||||
|
||||
- consistent lifecycle ownership,
|
||||
- explicit startup policy,
|
||||
- clear module boundaries,
|
||||
- documented architecture decisions.
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,320 @@
|
||||
# Version 1 Implementation Plan
|
||||
|
||||
This plan defines the path from MVP to **Version 1 complete**.
|
||||
The objective is to deliver the full scoped product with production readiness, while explicitly separating refinements/enhancements into a future document.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 0) Plan Governance & Scope Control (Foundation)
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Keep execution focused on V1 completion, not optimization/perfection.
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
1. Create and maintain a **V1 Traceability Matrix**:
|
||||
- Requirement ID
|
||||
- Current status (`done`, `partial`, `not started`)
|
||||
- Owner
|
||||
- Validation method
|
||||
2. Define V1 completion gates:
|
||||
- Functional complete
|
||||
- Operationally complete
|
||||
- Production-ready complete
|
||||
3. Snapshot the MVP baseline (tag/changelog reference).
|
||||
4. Create a standing rule: any non-V1 idea is logged to a separate enhancements backlog document (to be named later), not added to active V1 scope unless explicitly approved.
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- `docs/ver1/ver1.md` (this plan)
|
||||
- V1 traceability artifact (linked from here when created)
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Every in-scope requirement has explicit ownership and status.
|
||||
- Scope-change process is agreed and followed.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1) Architecture Consolidation
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Align implementation with the intended architecture and reduce MVP shortcuts.
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
1. Compare implemented modules/components with architecture documentation.
|
||||
2. Identify and classify architectural debt:
|
||||
- Temporary coupling
|
||||
- Missing interfaces
|
||||
- Placeholder services/components
|
||||
3. Resolve high-risk architectural gaps first.
|
||||
4. Record key decisions and tradeoffs in ADRs.
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- Updated architecture diagrams and boundaries
|
||||
- ADR entries for major decisions
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Architecture documentation reflects system reality.
|
||||
- Critical architecture risks are addressed or scheduled with owners/dates.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2) Error Handling & Reliability Hardening
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Ensure predictable, safe behavior under failure conditions.
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
1. Standardize error taxonomy and envelope format across all layers.
|
||||
2. Ensure clear distinction between:
|
||||
- User-facing errors
|
||||
- Internal/system errors
|
||||
- Retryable vs non-retryable failures
|
||||
3. Add resilience controls where needed:
|
||||
- Timeouts
|
||||
- Retries with backoff
|
||||
- Circuit breaking / fallback logic
|
||||
4. Add failure-path tests for critical workflows.
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- Error code catalog/reference
|
||||
- Failure mode test coverage for critical paths
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Error behavior is consistent across major flows.
|
||||
- Known failure scenarios are tested and pass.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3) Functional Completion by Requirement Domain
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Complete all V1 functional requirements in a risk-aware order.
|
||||
|
||||
### Recommended Order
|
||||
1. Business-critical end-user flows
|
||||
2. Data integrity and consistency capabilities
|
||||
3. Admin/operational controls
|
||||
4. Lower-priority UX and quality-of-life items that are in V1 scope
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
For each requirement slice:
|
||||
1. Finalize contract/schema
|
||||
2. Implement domain logic
|
||||
3. Implement persistence/state changes
|
||||
4. Integrate API/UI
|
||||
5. Add automated tests
|
||||
6. Update docs
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- Requirement completion report with validation evidence
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- All V1 “must-have” requirements are complete and validated.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4) Data Model, Migration, and Backfill Safety
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Ensure data model and migrations are production-safe.
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
1. Validate schema against final V1 domain needs.
|
||||
2. Implement forward-safe migrations.
|
||||
3. Define rollback/mitigation plans for migration failures.
|
||||
4. Build and verify backfill scripts (if needed).
|
||||
5. Add migration rehearsal in staging with representative data.
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- Migration runbook
|
||||
- Backfill verification checklist
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Migration plan validated in staging.
|
||||
- No unresolved data-loss risk for V1 rollout.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5) Security, Access Control, and Compliance Baseline
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Close MVP security gaps and establish V1 baseline controls.
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
1. Complete authn/authz coverage for all routes/actions.
|
||||
2. Enforce input validation and output sanitization.
|
||||
3. Verify secret management and credential rotation process.
|
||||
4. Add audit logging for sensitive operations.
|
||||
5. Run dependency/security scanning in CI and remediate findings.
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- Security checklist with status
|
||||
- Threat/risk update for V1 scope
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- No unresolved critical/high vulnerabilities for V1 launch.
|
||||
- Access control behavior verified by tests.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6) Observability & Operability
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Make system behavior observable and supportable in production.
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
1. Standardize structured logging and correlation IDs.
|
||||
2. Add core metrics:
|
||||
- Latency
|
||||
- Throughput
|
||||
- Error rates
|
||||
- Resource saturation
|
||||
3. Add tracing for critical request/workflow paths.
|
||||
4. Define SLOs/SLIs and alert thresholds.
|
||||
5. Prepare incident response and rollback runbooks.
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- Dashboards and alerts
|
||||
- Operations runbooks
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Team can detect, triage, and remediate incidents quickly.
|
||||
- Core production signals are available and reliable.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7) Test Strategy Expansion & Quality Gates
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Raise confidence for repeatable, low-risk releases.
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
1. Expand unit and integration tests across V1 features.
|
||||
2. Add contract tests between key components/services.
|
||||
3. Add end-to-end tests for critical user journeys.
|
||||
4. Add non-functional tests where relevant:
|
||||
- Performance/load
|
||||
- Soak
|
||||
- Failure-injection scenarios
|
||||
5. Enforce CI quality gates (tests, lint, type checks, security scans).
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- Test matrix with ownership
|
||||
- CI gate definition and thresholds
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Critical-path regressions are blocked automatically.
|
||||
- Test coverage and reliability thresholds meet V1 targets.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8) Performance & Scalability Validation
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Meet expected V1 performance at projected load.
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
1. Define performance budgets per key flow.
|
||||
2. Benchmark current behavior in staging.
|
||||
3. Optimize bottlenecks (queries, caching, concurrency, etc.).
|
||||
4. Re-test after each optimization and compare against budget.
|
||||
5. Document known limits and safe operating bounds.
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- Performance benchmark report
|
||||
- Optimization log
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- V1 performance targets met for expected usage profile.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 9) Release Engineering & Environment Readiness
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Make deployment repeatable, controlled, and reversible.
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
1. Harden CI/CD pipeline with clear promotion gates.
|
||||
2. Ensure config parity and consistency across environments.
|
||||
3. Define rollout strategy (phased/canary/limited release as applicable).
|
||||
4. Validate rollback procedures in staging.
|
||||
5. Produce release checklist and ownership model.
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- Release playbook
|
||||
- Environment readiness checklist
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Deployment and rollback are rehearsed and reliable.
|
||||
- Release process is executable without tribal knowledge.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 10) Documentation Completion
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Ensure V1 can be built, operated, and supported from documentation.
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
1. Update core project docs to match final V1 behavior:
|
||||
- Architecture
|
||||
- Error handling
|
||||
- Requirements status
|
||||
- Index/navigation
|
||||
- Intent alignment summary
|
||||
2. Add operator troubleshooting guides.
|
||||
3. Add integration/API examples for consumers.
|
||||
4. Publish changelog/version notes for V1.
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- Updated documentation set for V1
|
||||
- V1 release notes
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- A new team member can run/support the system using docs alone.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 11) Final Validation, UAT, and Launch
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Confirm readiness and launch V1 safely.
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
1. Run full-system acceptance validation against the V1 traceability matrix.
|
||||
2. Conduct stakeholder UAT and capture sign-off.
|
||||
3. Execute production readiness review.
|
||||
4. Launch in controlled phases and monitor key signals.
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- UAT/PRR sign-off records
|
||||
- Launch checklist and monitoring plan
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Stakeholder approval achieved.
|
||||
- Launch metrics are stable within defined thresholds.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 12) Post-Launch Stabilization (30–60 Days)
|
||||
|
||||
**Goal:** Consolidate V1 in production before major expansion.
|
||||
|
||||
### Implementation Steps
|
||||
1. Track incidents, defects, and user feedback.
|
||||
2. Prioritize stabilization fixes with short cycle times.
|
||||
3. Remove temporary flags/mitigations introduced during launch.
|
||||
4. Produce post-launch retrospective and handoff to standard roadmap cadence.
|
||||
|
||||
### Deliverables
|
||||
- Stabilization report
|
||||
- Prioritized backlog update
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Criteria
|
||||
- Incident/error rates converge to steady-state targets.
|
||||
- V1 transitions from launch mode to normal operations.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended Execution Rhythm
|
||||
|
||||
- **Weekly:** Requirement closure + risk review
|
||||
- **Biweekly:** Release train with quality gates
|
||||
- **Milestone reviews:** After phases 2, 6, 9, and 11
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Scope Discipline Rule (V1 Focus)
|
||||
|
||||
To preserve delivery focus:
|
||||
- V1 execution prioritizes completion of scoped requirements.
|
||||
- Refinements/enhancements are captured in a separate future document and backlog.
|
||||
- Only explicitly approved scope changes may enter this plan.
|
||||
Binary file not shown.
|
After Width: | Height: | Size: 1.2 MiB |
Reference in New Issue
Block a user