Enter the access password to view the site.
The 12-month plan following a successful pilot and first AI FDLC Review: rollout sequencing, deferred architecture activation, agent tier unlocks, and the system architecture the workflow operates within at one year post-pilot.
The 12-month post-pilot plan unfolds across four quarters of rollout, infrastructure deepening, agent unlocks, and constitution evolution — anchored by an immediate post-Review unlock and closed by the annual AI FDLC Review.
get_experience_type_patterns, get_recipe, validate_outputcompose_ui, validate_runtime_uiA New Capability feature flowing through a domain that has completed rollout onboarding and is operating at Spec-First maturity. LDG operational, A1 screening live, agents shouldering primary inputs at every gate.
| Activity | PM | Design Lead | Eng Lead | Architecture | DS Team | EngOps | Del Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 0 — Signal & Discovery (continuous) | |||||||
|
Signal intake & triage VoC SynthesisBehavioral Signal
Review agent-surfaced signal cards; promote to opportunity queue
|
R | C | I | — | — | — | I |
|
Opportunity sizing Opportunity Sizing
Review agent evidence package; validate ARR sizing before G1
|
A | C | — | — | — | — | I |
| Phase 1 — Discovery thread (G0→G1) | |||||||
|
Problem statement authoring Assumption Audit
Author problem statement; review assumption audit log before G1
|
R | C | C | — | — | — | — |
|
Feasibility pre-screen Feasibility Pre-Screen
Engineering Lead reviews agent pre-screen; confirms complexity signal
|
I | I | R | C | — | — | — |
|
G1 gate sign-off
Problem validated; feature type assigned; P7 row selected
|
A | R | R | — | — | — | — |
| Phase 2 — Spec Authoring (G1 → G2) | |||||||
|
Spec authoring — §1 (problem frame, ACs)
PM authors with agent assist; Engineering and Design co-review
|
R | C | C | — | — | — | — |
|
Spec authoring — §2 (data shape, states, hooks)
Engineering Lead authors with PM and Design co-authoring interaction model
|
C | C | R | C | — | — | — |
|
Dependency declaration A1 Screening
Engineering Lead reviews A1 screening output; declares contracts against LDG
|
I | — | R | C | — | — | — |
|
Pre-G2 quality checks A3 SufficiencyAC QualityConstraint Inventory
PM resolves sufficiency and AC quality findings; Design reviews constraint inventory
|
A | R | C | — | — | — | — |
|
G2 gate sign-off
Spec locked in git; all trio roles co-sign; architecture engaged if triggered
|
A | R | R | C | — | — | I |
| Phase 3 — Design generation + validation thread (G2→G3) | |||||||
|
Context loading & session setup Pattern-Aware Pre-Loader
Design Lead loads constitution, companion file, spec; reviews pattern pre-load brief
|
— | R | I | — | C | — | — |
|
Variant generation Generation AgentCopy Generation
Design Lead guides generation; reviews variants and companion microcopy
|
I | R | — | — | C | — | — |
|
Post-generation validation Spec-to-Proto ReconciliationL10n Pre-ScreenInteraction Cost
Design Lead reviews reconciliation diff, l10n flags, and interaction cost report
|
C | R | C | — | C | — | — |
|
Spec amendment (if gap discovered)
PM amends spec; decision log entry required; git commit before session resumes
|
R | C | C | — | — | — | — |
| Pre-G3 output preparation | |||||||
|
Output suite generation Output GenerationTest ScaffoldingAnalytics Validation
Design Lead reviews; Engineering Lead reviews test scaffolds and analytics plan validation
|
A | R | C | — | — | — | — |
| G3 gate sign-off | |||||||
|
G3 pre-review brief G3 Review BriefAC Implementability
Engineering Lead reviews both agent outputs before G3 session opens
|
C | I | R | C | — | — | — |
|
G3 gate sign-off
Engineering Lead accepts design deliverable; feasibility confirmed; decision log current
|
C | R | A | C | — | — | I |
| Phase 4 — Engineering AI implementation thread (G3→G4) | |||||||
|
Engineering spec draft Eng Spec Draft
Engineering Lead reviews and approves agent-drafted engineering spec
|
I | — | R | C | — | — | — |
|
Implementation units Engineering Build
Engineering Lead directs build; two-step review per unit; decision log current
|
I | — | R | — | — | I | — |
|
Decision log integrity check A2 Decision Log
Agent runs as blocking pre-gate check; Engineering Lead resolves any gaps
|
I | — | R | — | — | — | — |
|
CI/CD gate passage Eng Build Agent
Playwright + DS token lint + Axe-core must pass; first-attempt rate logged
|
I | — | R | — | C | R | — |
|
PR description generation PR Description
Agent generates; Engineering Lead reviews before submit
|
— | — | R | — | — | — | — |
|
G4 gate / AC verification
PM verifies all spec ACs met; Engineering Lead attests team-wide pattern application
|
A | C | R | — | — | I | I |
| Phase 5 — Ship (Release → Launch) | |||||||
|
Rollout configuration Rollout Config
Agent generates flag config; Engineering Lead reviews; PM owns flag flip (Launch)
|
A | — | R | — | — | C | — |
|
Release documentation Docs Continuity
Agent drafts release notes, help center scaffold, CSM summary; TW owns review + publish
|
I | — | C | — | — | — | I |
| Phase 6 — Post-ship close-out | |||||||
|
Pattern candidate surfacing Pattern CandidatePattern Reuse Impact
Design Lead reviews candidates; DS Team evaluates for promotion
|
— | R | — | — | A | — | — |
|
Close-out checkpoint
Trio retrospective; amendment candidates identified; cost log finalized
|
R | R | R | — | — | — | A |
|
JTBD completion rate monitoring JTBD Completion RateFriction Signal
PM reviews rate trajectory; Design reviews friction synthesis weekly
|
R | C | I | — | — | — | — |
|
Enhancement candidate routing Enhancement Candidates
PM reviews agent-generated candidates; promotes qualifying candidates to Phase 0 queue
|
A | C | — | — | — | — | I |
|
AI FDLC Review input preparation
Del Owner synthesizes cost data, amendment candidates, and maturity advancement evidence
|
C | C | C | C | C | C | R |
The system architecture the workflow operates within at one year post-pilot: Tier 1–2 agents active, infrastructure context layer flanking the workflow, cross-domain dependency system on the right, post-ship discovery loop closing back into Phase 0.
The post-ship discovery loop represents the structural loop closure: post-ship JTBD completion rate signals and enhancement candidates route back to Phase 0 as opportunity queue entries — making the FDLC self-generating rather than a one-directional pipeline. The cross-domain system on the right is not a phase in the workflow; it monitors and intercepts across all phases continuously via the Living Dependency Graph.
LLM-as-judge active, amendment protocol operational. Three structural shifts distinguish Spec-Anchored: spec versioned in the feature branch, LLM-as-judge as a blocking gate at G3, and an amendment protocol that runs as a constitutional-grade process.
| Activity | PM | Design Lead | Eng Lead | Architecture | DS Team | EngOps | Del Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 0–1 — Signal & discovery thread — unchanged from Spec-First; signal agents fully operational | |||||||
|
Signal triage + opportunity sizing VoCBehavioralOpp. Sizing
All Phase 0 agents operational; agent-generated sizing package reviewed before G1
|
R | C | I | — | — | — | I |
|
Feasibility pre-screen + assumption audit FeasibilityAssumption Audit
Both agents run pre-G1; Engineering Lead and PM review outputs before gate
|
A | C | R | C | — | — | — |
| Phase 2 — Spec Authoring (G1 → G2) — spec versioned in feature branch; amendment protocol enforced | |||||||
|
Spec authoring — all sections A3 SufficiencyAC Quality
PM authors §1; Engineering Lead authors §2; agent quality checks run continuously during authoring, not only pre-gate
|
R | C | R | C | — | — | — |
|
Dependency declaration + cross-domain check A1 ScreeningX-Domain Align
A1 screens against LDG; cross-domain alignment agent runs if multiple active specs share the same entity. Both must clear before G2.
|
I | — | R | A | — | — | — |
|
Spec versioning at G2 lock
spec.md committed to feature branch; baseline version tagged; subsequent changes only via amendment protocol — no informal edits
|
A | C | R | — | — | I | — |
| Phase 3 — Design generation + validation thread (G2→G3) — drift detection automated; amendment protocol active | |||||||
|
Context loading + constraint inventory Constraint InventoryPattern Pre-LoaderB1 Staleness
Staleness monitor confirms companion file is current before session opens — session does not begin on a stale companion file
|
— | R | C | — | I | — | — |
|
Variant generation + copy Generation AgentCopy Generation
Generation runs within versioned spec; Design Lead supervises; sliding window enforced; Textura MCP Phase 2 active throughout
|
I | R | — | — | I | — | — |
|
Spec drift detection Spec-to-Proto Reconcil.A2 Decision Log
▲ SPEC-ANCHORED CHANGE: Reconciliation agent runs continuously during generation (not post-session). Any drift above threshold triggers automatic pause and amendment protocol — generation does not continue on a drifted spec.
|
A | R | C | — | — | — | — |
|
Amendment protocol execution Amendment Agent
▲ NEW AT SPEC-ANCHORED: Agent detects drift → proposes structured amendment entry with rationale → PM reviews and approves or rejects → spec versioned in git → decision-log.md updated → session resumes. No generation on unapproved spec version.
|
A | C | C | — | — | — | — |
|
Post-generation validation suite L10nInteraction Cost
L10n pre-screen and interaction cost report run automatically post-selection; findings routed to Design Lead for resolution before output suite
|
C | R | C | — | I | — | — |
|
Output suite — tiered by feature type Output SuiteTest ScaffoldingAnalytics Validation
▲ SPEC-ANCHORED CHANGE: Enhancement features receive abbreviated suite (QA cases + decision rationale only; engineering annotations on Engineering Lead request). New Capability and New Paradigm receive full suite. Feature type set at G1; suite config locked in spec template at G2.
|
A | R | C | — | — | — | — |
| G3 gate sign-off — LLM-as-judge is a blocking gate; Tier A findings prevent G3 from clearing | |||||||
|
G3 pre-review package G3 Review BriefAC ImplementabilityLLM-as-Judge Pre-run
▲ SPEC-ANCHORED CHANGE: LLM-as-judge runs Tier A (automated coverage checks) before G3 opens. Engineering Lead receives: G3 brief + AC implementability assessment + Tier A findings. Tier A blocking findings are resolved before G3 session, not during it.
|
C | R | A | C | I | — | — |
|
LLM-as-judge Tier B–C evaluation LLM-as-Judge (Opus 4)
▲ NEW AT SPEC-ANCHORED: Tier B (design constitution compliance; heuristic evaluation) and Tier C (design quality) run at G3. Tier B findings are blocking. Tier C findings are advisory — Design Lead disposition required in writing before G3 clears. Engineering Lead is informed of all findings; does not override Design Lead disposition.
|
I | A | I | I | C | — | I |
|
G3 gate sign-off
Tier A and Tier B findings resolved; Tier C dispositions documented; Engineering Lead accepts design deliverable; all agents confirm clean state
|
C | R | A | C | — | — | I |
| Phase 4 — Engineering AI implementation thread (G3→G4) — unchanged from Spec-First; decision log integrity now continuous | |||||||
|
Implementation units + two-step review Engineering BuildPR Description
Engineering Lead directs build; two-step review per unit; decision log enforced continuously by A2 agent — no gate needed to surface gaps
|
I | — | R | — | — | I | — |
|
CI/CD gate + rollout config CI/CD GatesRollout Config
All CI/CD stages pass; rollout config generated and reviewed; stability window enforced in schedule
|
A | — | R | — | — | R | — |
|
G4 gate / AC verification
PM verifies all spec ACs met against versioned spec; Engineering Lead attests pattern application; cost log complete
|
A | C | R | — | — | I | I |
| Phase 5–6 — Ship, post-ship & constitution contribution — constitution amendment pipeline active at Spec-Anchored | |||||||
|
Pattern promotion Pattern CandidatePattern DocumentationReuse Impact
▲ SPEC-ANCHORED CHANGE: Domain team initiates pattern promotion — does not wait for DS Team to identify candidates. Agent drafts documentation; DS Team reviews and approves. Reuse impact agent notifies active trios immediately on promotion.
|
I | A | I | — | R | — | — |
|
Constitution amendment candidate submission C1 Amendment Candidate
▲ NEW AT SPEC-ANCHORED: Close-out checkpoint produces structured amendment candidates via R2 format. C1 agent cross-references decision log + spec gap log against current constitution — surfaces candidates the trio didn't identify. PM and Engineering Lead jointly review; Del Owner authorizes submission to AI FDLC Review.
|
R | C | R | C | — | — | A |
|
JTBD monitoring + loop closure JTBD Completion RateFriction SignalEnhancement Candidates
All post-ship agents operational; enhancement candidates auto-generated and queued for PM review; PM promotes qualifying candidates to Phase 0
|
R | C | I | — | — | — | I |
|
AI FDLC Review input — constitution amendments
Del Owner synthesizes amendment candidates from close-out records across domains; AI FDLC Review approves, modifies, or defers each; approved amendments versioned before next generation session in affected domains
|
C | C | C | R | C | — | A |
From onboarding through Spec-as-Source — the maturity arc is about how much of the workflow a domain has made its own. Central governance sets the foundation; domain investment is what compounds quality on top of it.
| Artifact / area | Who authors | Who reviews | Update trigger | Cadence | Unlock stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Domain design companion file | Design Lead | DS Team Lead | Constitution amendment · Pattern promotion · DS component deprecation | Same sprint as trigger · Staleness monitor flag | Stage 1 |
| Domain engineering companion file | Engineering Lead | Architecture | Constitution amendment · Service contract change · New tech introduced | Same sprint as trigger | Stage 1 |
| LDG entries (services owned) | Engineering Lead | Architecture | Contract change · New service · Consumer team added | Event-driven; not periodic | Stage 1 |
| Domain context pack | Design Lead or Engineering Lead | DS Team (design pack) · Architecture (eng pack) | Entity model change · New service hook · Experience type change | Per feature if domain model changes; quarterly review minimum | Stage 1 |
| Domain analytics taxonomy | PM | Del Owner | New feature shipped · JTBD success event definition changes | Per feature; reviewed at close-out | Stage 1 (basic) · Stage 2 (full) |
| Domain test framework | Engineering Lead | EngOps | New test pattern proven across 2+ features · Playwright page object gap | Per feature at close-out; quarterly library review | Stage 1 (baseline) · Stage 2 (expanded) |
| Pattern candidates | Design Lead (identifies) | DS Team (promotes) | Novel composition validated at G3; appears in 2+ features | Close-out checkpoint | Stage 2 |
| Domain prompt library | Design Lead + Engineering Lead | Del Owner | Generation session retrospective identifies better prompts · Model routing override recurs | Monthly or per anomaly | Stage 2 |
| Amendment candidates (R2 format) | PM + Engineering Lead | Del Owner → AI FDLC Review | Close-out checkpoint; C1 agent surfaces additional candidates | Per close-out | Stage 3 |
| Domain pattern library section | Design Lead (drafts via agent) | DS Team (approves) | Pattern candidate promoted · Pattern deprecated · Usage guidance updated | Per promotion event | Stage 3 |
| Feature ROI packages | PM (narrative) + agent (evidence) | Del Owner | 60–90 days post-ship for each feature | Per feature at N-day mark | Stage 3 |
| Domain onboarding playbook | All trio leads jointly | Del Owner | When adjacent teams begin onboarding into domain; updated after each new team onboards | Event-driven | Stage 4 |
| Recipe contributions (Textura MCP) | Engineering Lead + Design Lead | DS Engineering Lead (Tyler) | Composition proven stable across 3+ features; candidate for MCP tool | Quarterly review; per Phase 2/3 build cycle | Stage 4 |