22100f94cf
Decision records DR-1 (tenancy), DR-2 (coulomb.social shape), DR-3 (external identity) framing the Binky Hedgehog commercial lane on the coulomb/HelixForge platform; coordination workplan for service contract, client-hub scoping, fin-hub billing gap, and delivery-lane pilot. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
6.5 KiB
Business Platform Decision Records
Created: 2026-07-10
Workplan: CUST-WP-0058
Status: All three decisions pending — Bernd's to resolve; this document
frames options and recommendations only.
Context
Binky Hedgehog GmbH intends to build commercial business applications on the coulomb/HelixForge platform (Forgejo → railiance-forge → railiance-apps → Core Hub ecosystem):
- vergabe-teilnahme — tender-participation web app as the first commercial offering for business clients.
- coulomb.social rebuild — replace the current bubble.io implementation as the second business project.
The hub-ecosystem review (2026-07-09, see hub-ecosystem-architecture.md)
concluded the architecture is sound but three decisions gate the business
lane. Each is recorded here with options and a recommendation; resolution
happens via State Hub decision records (resolve_decision).
DR-1 — Tenancy model for vergabe-teilnahme
Status: pending
Question
How are business clients isolated: one deployed instance per client, or one multi-tenant instance?
Options
| Option | Description | Consequences |
|---|---|---|
| A. Instance-per-client | Each client gets a dedicated deployment (own DB, own release values in railiance-apps) |
Strong isolation; simpler compliance story; per-client backup/restore; matches vergabe-teilnahme SCOPE ("no multi-tenancy"); ops-hub must model client instances; fin-hub needs per-instance cost attribution; N instances = N upgrade operations |
| B. Multi-tenant single instance | One deployment, tenant column / row-level isolation | Cheaper to operate at scale; contradicts current SCOPE; requires tenancy rework in the app; single blast radius for incidents and data-protection failures |
| C. Hybrid (A now, B later) | Start instance-per-client; revisit at a client-count threshold | Defers rework until demand proves it; risk of never consolidating |
Recommendation
Option A (instance-per-client) for v1, with an explicit revisit trigger (e.g. >5 paying clients or upgrade toil exceeding one operator-day/month). It matches the app's current SCOPE, the railiance-apps per-app values pattern, and gives the cleanest early compliance/data-protection story for German business clients.
Downstream effects once resolved
- ops-hub: add client-instance entity (environment × client mapping)
- fin-hub: per-instance cost attribution keys
- Business-app service contract (CUST-WP-0058-T04): codify instance provisioning/backup/upgrade obligations
DR-2 — coulomb.social rebuild architecture
Status: pending
Question
Is the coulomb.social rebuild a Core Hub extension (hubs/widgets/ manifests, ops-hub pattern) or a standalone application (vergabe- teilnahme pattern)?
Options
| Option | Description | Consequences |
|---|---|---|
| A. Core Hub extension | Built on /api/v2 framework: hubs, widgets, manifests, interaction events |
Reuses production framework already at hub.coulomb.social; interaction-platform semantics fit; couples product evolution to core-hub framework maturity; framework gaps become product blockers |
| B. Standalone app | Own service repo, own DB, deployed via forge→apps lane like vergabe-teilnahme | Full product freedom; no framework coupling; duplicates interaction/identity plumbing core-hub already has; two social-ish surfaces to keep coherent |
| C. Defer until after the vergabe-teilnahme pilot | Run the delivery-lane pilot first; decide with evidence | Costs calendar time; decision made with real platform evidence instead of speculation |
Recommendation
Option C, with a leaning toward A. The delivery-lane pilot (CUST-WP-0058-T07) will expose whether the forge→apps path and Core Hub framework are mature enough to host a client-facing interaction product. Deciding now would be speculation; the bubble.io exit additionally needs a separately-scoped data migration assessment regardless of which shape wins.
Downstream effects once resolved
- A → core-hub gains its first external-product extension; widget/manifest contract hardening becomes product-critical
- B → second entry in the business-app service contract; shared identity becomes the only coupling point
- Either → bubble.io data-export/migration workplan in the owning repo
DR-3 — External identity path for business clients
Status: pending
Question
What identity stack serves external users (client employees, later
coulomb.social members): the current lightweight internal stack
(KeyCape/Authelia/LLDAP) or the proposed expanded-mode Keycloak lane
(NK-WP-0011)?
Options
| Option | Description | Consequences |
|---|---|---|
| A. Lightweight stack, app-local accounts for v1 | vergabe-teilnahme manages its own user accounts per instance; platform identity stays internal | Fastest to ship; consistent with instance-per-client isolation; no SSO story; identity debt accrues per app |
| B. Activate NK-WP-0011 (Keycloak expanded mode) now | Platform-level OIDC for external users before first client onboarding | One identity story from day one; enterprise federation ready; heavyweight — delays first client; NK-WP-0011 is only proposed |
| C. Trigger-based: A for vergabe-teilnahme v1, B gated on defined triggers | Define explicit conditions that activate the Keycloak lane (e.g. coulomb.social greenlight, first client requesting SSO/AD federation, >2 apps with local accounts) | Ships v1 fast without pretending identity debt doesn't exist; triggers make the debt visible and bounded |
Recommendation
Option C. Vergabe-teilnahme v1 explicitly excludes external partner accounts and is instance-per-client, so app-local auth is defensible for that app. coulomb.social is the forcing function: any resolution of DR-2 that greenlights the rebuild should automatically activate the NK-WP-0011 lane, because a social platform on app-local accounts is not viable.
Downstream effects once resolved
- NetKingdom: NK-WP-0011 gets concrete activation triggers instead of indefinite "proposed" status
- Business-app service contract: identity section states which mode each app class must use
Resolution protocol
- Each DR is registered as a pending State Hub decision (custodian topic).
- Bernd resolves via
resolve_decision()or by stating the choice in a session; the resolving agent updates this document's status lines and the hub record together. CUST-WP-0058tasks T01–T03 track the facilitation; downstream tasks staywaituntil their gating DR is resolved.