tegwick
e783dc9a2b
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.
1.9 KiB
DEC-002 — Quality Escalation Trigger Strategy
Status: accepted Date: 2026-06-18 Owner: Bernd Blocks: LOOP-WP-0002 T03, T05, T07
Question
Should reactive quality escalation (LOOP-WP-0002) use event-driven triggers, hourly sweep polling, or both?
Context
Supplier draft low-success-rate-review expects NATS event kaizen.metrics.recorded.
That emitter does not exist in kaizen-agentic metrics record today (KAIZEN-WP-0008 T03).
LOOP-WP-0002 proposes hourly sweep as bootstrap scaffolding until events ship.
Options
A — Sweep first, events later (recommended)
- Bootstrap: hourly
discover_kaizen_projectssweep only - After KAIZEN-WP-0008 ships emitter: enable event definition; demote sweep to daily backup
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Unblocks LOOP-WP-0002 without supplier code | Higher hub load during bootstrap |
| Proven pattern (activity-core shell resolvers) | Latency up to 1 hour |
B — Block until event emitter ships
Wait for metrics record --emit-event before any LOOP-WP-0002 automation.
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Clean architecture | Delays reactive loop entirely |
| No duplicate triggers | LOOP-WP-0004 lacks quality signal data |
C — Dual from day one
Run hourly sweep and events when available; dedupe by (repo, agent, hour).
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Fastest signal once events land | Duplicate task risk; complex dedupe |
| Harder to tune false-positive rate |
Recommendation
Option A. Document emitter contract now (LOOP-WP-0002 T03); implement in KAIZEN-WP-0008; keep sweep as documented backup per ADR-003 stabilize phase.
Decision record
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Chosen option | A — sweep first, events later |
| Decided by | Bernd Worsch |
| Decided at | 2026-06-18 |
On approval
Update loops/quality-escalation/thresholds.yml trigger section.