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

Finish RPF-WP-0018; RPF-WP-0019 repository-complete
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 0s
Details
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
Details

Browse source 
RPF-WP-0018 closed: all seven tasks done. The provider-declaration finding
was adopted upstream and its canonical form is the provider: block in
tenancy.yaml; adaptive-pricing declined the standing co-signature and
supplied typed tier minima instead, recorded in ADR-0002. Three corrections
against our own output are recorded in the documents rather than edited
away.

RPF-WP-0019 T03 done (ceiling of three, memory binding, apps-pg-2 named as
overflow, enforced by make apps-pg-verify-capacity). T01/T02 are
repository-complete: backup target, retention, per-consumer connection
limits, role timeouts and Burstable resources are declared in source and
published in s3-consumer-interfaces 1.1.0 before rollout. They stay in
progress because no live application, backup success or restore proof
exists, and declared configuration is not a section 13 artifact. T04 waits
on that window.

apps-pg R reason corrected to say the target is declared-not-applied rather
than absent.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
codex 2026-08-18 13:35:04 +02:00
parent e52ae26001
commit dc4245361d
20 changed files with 650 additions and 73 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

18
docs/adr/ADR-0002-placement-policy-ownership.md
View file

@ -12,7 +12,8 @@ review_interval: 6m
## Context
`net-kingdom/canon/standards/tenancy-posture_v0.1.md` §8.2 proposes that
An earlier draft of
`net-kingdom/canon/standards/tenancy-posture_v0.1.md` §8.2 proposed that
database placement policy — dedicated versus shared, and when that changes —
be owned by `railiance-platform`, co-signed by `adaptive-pricing`.
`tenant-engine` raised the same gap independently on 2026-08-16: both patterns
@ -49,15 +50,18 @@ compliance position; S3 knows the substrate. A placement change needs both.
Putting the decision solely here would recreate the problem §8.2 exists to
avoid — an operations-shaped repo holding a commercial decision alone.
`adaptive-pricing` co-signature is requested, not assumed.
`adaptive-pricing` declined the standing co-signature on 2026-08-17. The
replacement is binding and machine-reconcilable: it publishes typed tier
minimums; this policy validates placement against them. Ownership stays here.
## Consequences
- `docs/placement-policy.md` is the operative document; this ADR is the
decision behind it.
- §19.8 is answered by obligation rather than by number: Rule P-4.1 requires
`platform-pg` and `apps-pg` to declare a ceiling before their third consumer.
Both are at two consumers.
- §19.8 is answered for `platform-pg` by `rapp-postgres` ADR-0004: four
consumers, with `platform-pg-2` named as the still-absent overflow target.
Rule P-4.1 still requires `apps-pg` to declare its own ceiling before its
third consumer.
- This repo owes `apps-pg`'s ceiling under its own rule. A policy whose author
is exempt is not a policy.
- §8.1 requires triggers to be *monitored*. This repo has no monitoring plane,
@ -65,8 +69,8 @@ avoid — an operations-shaped repo holding a commercial decision alone.
pending `railiance-telemetry`. Declaring a ceiling is a partial substitute —
a written threshold is checkable by a human at provisioning, which beats a
limit discovered by an OOM kill.
- If `adaptive-pricing` declines, this ADR is revised to record single
ownership explicitly rather than leaving an unsigned co-signature line.
- `adaptive-pricing`'s decline is recorded as single policy ownership plus a
mandatory typed constraint join, not as an absent signature.
## Alternatives considered