Files

tegwick e783dc9a2b Bootstrap coulomb-loop engagement: governance, loops, and activity definitions.

Register with state-hub, accept DEC-001–004 and ADR-004 rotation policy, scaffold
pilot roster, hourly ActivityDefinition copies, and bootstrap log after schedule
init on three custodian pilot repos.

2026-06-18 04:53:51 +02:00

1.9 KiB

Raw Blame History

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

1.9 KiB Raw Blame History