coulomb/adaptive-pricing
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

ADAPTIVE-WP-0009 T05: Q2 decided — decline co-signature, bind via artifact

Browse source 
Bernd's call: option C without the scoped-veto bridge. A veto would only
protect existing claim-bearing tiers and there are none, so not being live
is what makes the direct move safe. Records a named revisit trigger.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
codex 2026-08-17 22:01:54 +02:00
parent fa4834ae61
commit 6a189c8dd5
1 changed files with 22 additions and 6 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

28
workplans/ADAPTIVE-WP-0009-tenancy-posture-alignment.md
View file

@ -231,12 +231,28 @@ availability** until finding 1 is resolved; say so rather than inventing a level
`tenant-engine` owns which plan a tenant holds; this repo owns the terms — state
that split when replying so the seam is recorded.
**Q2 — placement co-signature.** Recommend **accepting, scoped**: co-signer means
a veto on placement policy changes that would invalidate an existing tier's
recorded minimum — not a seat in per-workload placement operations. §8.2's
reasoning holds and the stated alternative is real (placement decided purely on
operational grounds then constrains what can be sold), but unscoped co-signature
on an ops decision puts a commercial repo in a ticket queue. Bernd's call.
**Q2 — placement co-signature. Decided 2026-08-17 by Bernd: decline the
signature, bind via artifact instead.**
adaptive-pricing publishes tier minimums as typed constraints (T02/T03) and asks
railiance-platform to validate placement against them. Ownership stays single;
the check runs every time rather than when someone remembers to route it. §8.2's
concern is right — placement decided purely on operational grounds does constrain
what can be sold — but a signature is the wrong instrument for a constraint that
is machine-checkable, and tier minimums are machine-checkable by construction.
**No interim veto.** A scoped veto was considered and dropped: its only purpose
would be protecting existing claim-bearing tiers, and there are none. Not being
live is what makes the direct move safe.
**Named revisit trigger** — if a tier carrying an isolation, availability or
retention claim is drafted before the constraint artifact lands, reopen this
decision rather than assume it. Declining must not be open-ended.
Accept the P ladder, the triggers and §8.1's monitoring obligation
unconditionally. Caveat to raise: §8.1 says triggers MUST be monitored and never
says by whom; if that defaults to adaptive-pricing it is a standing obligation on
a repo with no on-call. Propose it is railiance-platform's.
Reply on the State Hub to message `6d5293ca-4f69-46a6-a78e-b469e626b83d`.