tegwick
89b9b55c43
Publish the baseline profit-center framework for Binky, Frontier, Railiance, Netkingdom, Helixforge, and Coulomb. Railiance procures and manages IT resources; other centers settle monthly at cost plus 20%. Wire INTENT, SCOPE, and the portfolio cadence to the terms, and open RESOURCE-WP-0004 for schema and settlement adoption.
91 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
91 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
# Portfolio reporting and operating cadence
|
|
|
|
`make portfolio-report` renders the current portfolio view from
|
|
`tools/portfolio_report.py`. The report is derived entirely from committed
|
|
evidence: resource records in `data/resources/`, the latest
|
|
`data/portfolio-coverage-*.json`, and the optimization cases in
|
|
`data/optimization/`. Nothing in it is typed by hand.
|
|
|
|
## What the report answers
|
|
|
|
| Section | Question |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| `coverage` | Which service groups are represented, and which evidence gaps are still delegated and to whom. |
|
|
| `lifecycle` | How many resources sit in each lifecycle state, and whether any lacks an owner. |
|
|
| `utilization` | Provisioned versus observed capacity per metric, flagged `idle`, `normal`, or `saturated`; and which resources cannot be measured at all. |
|
|
| `cost` | Which resources carry price evidence, which do not, and which have no allocation method so their cost reaches no consumer. |
|
|
| `renewals` | Contract dates inside the 90-day horizon, and resources with no recorded dates at all. |
|
|
| `risks` | Concentrated failure domains, unpriced resources, unattributed cost, idle and saturated capacity. |
|
|
| `optimization` | Open cases, their per-option verdicts, and the named evidence blocking each one. |
|
|
| `next_actions` | The smallest set of evidence that would unblock the most decisions, addressed to the repository that owns it. |
|
|
|
|
## Not forcing false precision
|
|
|
|
Two rules the report holds to, because the alternative is a number that looks
|
|
authoritative and is not:
|
|
|
|
- **`known_monthly_spend_eur` is `null`, not `0`.** No booked cost has reached
|
|
this repository, and six of seven resources carry no price evidence. Summing
|
|
what happens to be known would report a portfolio spend an order of magnitude
|
|
below reality. The figure stays unknown until `fin-hub` delivers booked facts
|
|
under `docs/fin-hub-resource-control-contract-v0.1.md`.
|
|
- **Unattributed cost is a list, not a spread.** Four resources have allocation
|
|
mode `unattributed`. Their cost is not divided across consumers by a plausible
|
|
default; they are named, and the allocation driver is owed by the repository
|
|
that owns the resource.
|
|
|
|
Resources that cannot be measured appear in `utilization.unmeasured` with the
|
|
reason, rather than being silently omitted from the ratios.
|
|
|
|
## Cadence
|
|
|
|
| Rhythm | When | Inputs | Consumers | Output |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| **Monthly observation** | First week, for the closed month | Monthly actual records from delegated telemetry; booked costs from `fin-hub` | resource-control | `tools/control_cycle.py` variance per resource; a new optimization case where variance is attributed to demand, price, or allocation rather than data quality |
|
|
| **Monthly settlement** | With the observation, once entity association is live | Per-entity usage, delivered cost, transfer prices under `docs/TermsOfResourceProcurement.md`; recognized payments from `fin-hub` | consuming financial entities; Railiance operations; `fin-hub` | One settlement statement and credit-state evaluation (`open` or `restricted`) per consuming entity |
|
|
| **Monthly portfolio report** | With the observation | Resource records, coverage, optimization cases | Human operator; owning repositories | `make portfolio-report`; the `next_actions` list is re-sent to the repositories named in it |
|
|
| **Quarterly calibration** | End of quarter | Three months of variance | resource-control; `fin-hub` | Forecast revisions per `docs/forecast-actual-control.md` — revisions, never overwrites; refreshed provider prices in every open case |
|
|
| **Pre-renewal review** | At least 60 days before the earliest `renews_on` or `cancel_by` | Contract evidence, utilization, open cases | Human financial authority | A `renewal` case, decided while cancellation is still possible |
|
|
| **Event-driven** | Sustained variance beyond threshold, an incident exposing a failure domain, or a workload request | The triggering evidence | Owning repository | A case of the matching type per `docs/optimization-cases.md` |
|
|
|
|
## Delivered evidence stays visible
|
|
|
|
A delegated gap that is answered does not vanish from the report. It moves from
|
|
`coverage.unresolved_gaps` to `coverage.delivered_gaps`, keeping the interface
|
|
that answered it and the **residual unknowns** it did not, and each residual
|
|
still generates a next action. Partial delivery must not read as full coverage.
|
|
|
|
`RAILIANCE-WP-0016` is the first example: railiance-platform delivered apps-pg
|
|
capacity, utilization, consumers, and the `apps-pg-dbbytes-v1` allocation
|
|
driver, and deliberately delivered no EUR. Three residuals remain open — the
|
|
booked host share, the labour estimate, and the absent recovery objectives — so
|
|
apps-pg is now measurable and attributed while still counting as unpriced.
|
|
|
|
## Reading the current report
|
|
|
|
As of 2026-08-14 an operator asking the four questions this cadence exists to
|
|
answer gets these answers, and the honest ones are the useful ones:
|
|
|
|
- **Material spend?** Unknown, and explicitly so. Only the proposed backup
|
|
storage carries price evidence. Every other resource is waiting on
|
|
`RAIL-HO-WP-0008` and `FIN-WP-0004`.
|
|
- **Idle or saturated capacity?** `railiance01`, the `reef-railiance` k3s
|
|
cluster, and `apps-pg` are idle on every measured metric — 14 percent CPU,
|
|
37 percent memory, and 5.8 percent of the apps-pg volume. Nothing is
|
|
saturated. Four resources cannot be measured at all.
|
|
- **Forecast error?** Not yet computable. The first operational forecast record
|
|
exists for apps-pg, but its period is 2026-09 and no actual has been observed
|
|
against it, so there is no variance to report and none is fabricated. Its
|
|
infrastructure cost is `null`, so even when the actual lands, cost variance
|
|
will read `unknown` until a booked fact arrives.
|
|
- **Approaching commitments?** None visible — and that is itself the finding:
|
|
six active resources have no renewal or cancellation date recorded, so the
|
|
cancellation window cannot be respected for any of them.
|
|
- **Next evidence-backed action?** The `next_actions` list, led by the seven
|
|
delegated workplans that own the missing evidence.
|
|
|
|
The single largest structural risk the report surfaces is concentration: six of
|
|
seven resources share `host:railiance01`, including the backup storage's own
|
|
intended protection target. That is the standing argument for placing backup
|
|
storage outside the Host Europe failure domain, and it is visible in the report
|
|
rather than only in prose.
|