# DEC-004 — Supplier Playbook Delivery Priority

**Status:** accepted
**Date:** 2026-06-18
**Owner:** Bernd
**Blocks:** KAIZEN-WP-0008 sequencing

---

## Question

What should kaizen-agentic (supplier) prioritize **before** vs **after** first
hourly loop smoke test?

## Context

KAIZEN-WP-0008 bundles supplier obligations: customer-repo template, event emitter,
engagement CLI, playbook. Full delivery before smoke test delays customer value;
minimal delivery risks rework.

## Options

### A — Smoke-first, playbook parallel (recommended)

**Before smoke test (KAIZEN-WP-0008 Part 1):**

- Document customer-repo layout (reference: coulomb-loop)
- Support pilot `schedule init` on target repos (docs only; CLI exists)

**After smoke test (KAIZEN-WP-0008 Part 2):**

- `metrics record --emit-event`
- `schedule init --engagement` scaffold
- Playbook v1 in supplier repo

| Pros | Cons |
|------|------|
| Fastest proof of LOOP-WP-0001 | Playbook incomplete until smoke passes |
| Playbook informed by real friction | |

### B — Playbook-first

Complete customer-repo template and engagement CLI before any activity-core enable.

| Pros | Cons |
|------|------|
| Second customer ready sooner | Delays all loop automation |
| | Speculative without smoke data |

### C — Automation-first

Prioritize activity-core resolver + event emitter; defer playbook to LOOP-WP-0004 T07.

| Pros | Cons |
|------|------|
| Unblocks LOOP-WP-0002 events | Customer repo conventions undocumented |
| Cross-repo focus | Harder for humans to operate engagement |

## Recommendation

**Option A.** Record friction in `loops/*/supplier-notes.md` during smoke test;
feed into playbook draft at LOOP-WP-0004 T07 / KAIZEN-WP-0008 Part 2.

## Decision record

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Chosen option | **A** — smoke-first, playbook parallel |
| Decided by | Bernd Worsch |
| Decided at | 2026-06-18 |