One canonical roadmap, so the work stops drifting between five lanes - #19
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The roadmap described the right things but had no spine, so "release work", "report work", "controls", "ARM" and "frameworks" kept competing for the same slot as though only one could proceed. They are three independent tracks and a phase order, and conflating them has cost more time than any of the work itself. Owner decision, 2026-09-20, recorded as the single authoritative reading: Phase 0 technical preview foundation IMPLEMENTED Phase 1 reproducible example report PLANNED, closes IQ-011 Phase 2 W1-D host assurance collection PLANNED, ten control domains Phase 3 native ISE-* control catalog PLANNED Phase 4 findings report PLANNED, first customer-useful output Phase 5 approved baseline and classified delta PLANNED Phase 6 platform expansion PLANNED Phase 7 generic mapping engine FUTURE Phase 8 Mode B verified open mappings FUTURE Phase 9 Mode C provider-authorized BYOL FUTURE Two things this fixes beyond ordering. The alpha's goal is stated plainly: prove the engine, packaging, deterministic semantics and release process are sound enough to build an assurance layer on. It is not to complete assurance content. Measured against assurance breadth the technical preview would fail for the wrong reason. And the report is no longer described as absent. Four milestones separate what exists from what does not: R0 evidence report works today, R1 is a reproducible public sample, R2 adds native findings, R3 adds baseline and delta. The reporting engine is not what is missing; the assurance intelligence is. No duration is frozen. An estimate produced before a single domain has been built is a guess wearing a schedule's clothing, and this repository does not publish confidence the evidence has not earned. The method is recorded instead: build the first two domains, measure the real cost of collector plus fixtures plus criterion plus renderer plus falsification, then re-estimate the rest from observed velocity. No architecture decision is taken here. An amendment follows implementation evidence, never the reverse. Implements: D-65, D-66, D-82, D-88 Assisted-by: Claude (drafting from the owner's canonical roadmap)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Documentation only. One file, 77 lines added, no code and no gate changes.
The roadmap described the right things but had no spine, so "release work", "report work", "controls", "ARM" and "frameworks" kept competing for the same slot as though only one could proceed. They are three independent tracks and a phase order, and conflating them has cost more time than any of the work itself.
Owner decision, 2026-09-20, recorded as the single authoritative reading:
IQ-011PLANNEDISE-*control catalogPLANNEDPLANNEDPLANNEDPLANNEDFUTUREFUTUREFUTURETwo things this fixes beyond ordering.
The alpha's goal is stated plainly: prove the engine, packaging, deterministic semantics and release process are sound enough to build an assurance layer on. It is not to complete assurance content. Measured against assurance breadth, a technical preview would fail for the wrong reason.
The report is no longer described as absent. Four milestones separate what exists from what does not — R0 evidence report works today, R1 is the reproducible public sample, R2 adds native findings, R3 adds baseline and delta. The reporting engine is not what is missing; the assurance intelligence is.
No duration is frozen. An estimate produced before a single domain has been built is a guess wearing a schedule's clothing, and this repository does not publish confidence the evidence has not earned. The method is recorded instead: build the first two domains, measure the real cost of collector plus fixtures plus criterion plus renderer plus falsification, then re-estimate the rest from observed velocity.
No architecture decision is taken here. An amendment follows implementation evidence, never the reverse.