Evidence and Readiness Model designed
GPUaaS does not treat readiness as "the code merged" or "the pipeline passed".
Readiness is a claim backed by evidence:
- product-flow evidence
- contract/codegen evidence
- deploy/readback evidence
- UAT evidence
- security/rule-selection evidence
- rollback or safe-next-action evidence
What This Proves
| Audience | What this page should prove |
|---|---|
| Security | claims are tied to proof and sensitive material is intentionally excluded |
| Operations | deploy and release posture are based on readback, not only command completion |
| Architecture | evidence belongs to the system design, not just to incident response |
| Engineering | runbooks, contracts, UAT, and evidence packets are first-class output |
Readiness Chain
What Counts As Evidence
Examples:
- deterministic command output
- release or deploy summary packets
- UAT scenario summaries
- readback JSON or sanitized status artifacts
- schema/codegen drift checks
- review packets and security-rule-selection artifacts
- rollback proof or blocked-safe handback
What Is Deliberately Excluded
Evidence should not carry raw sensitive material.
Excluded by rule:
- passwords and tokens
- private keys and kubeconfigs
- raw session cookies
- broad raw logs when they contain tenant or credential detail
- unbounded provider transcripts
- QR payloads, OTP seeds, and other factor secrets
The evidence model is designed to preserve proof while avoiding accidental data retention.
Readiness Is Multi-Layered
| Layer | Example question |
|---|---|
| Product readiness | Does the user or operator flow actually work end to end? |
| Contract readiness | Do the declared API and event contracts match implementation? |
| Environment readiness | Can the target environment safely accept and run the change? |
| Release readiness | Is the exact source SHA and artifact set ready to promote? |
| Claim readiness | Are we justified in making a security or production claim externally? |
These are related, but not interchangeable.
Why Non-Code Work Is First-Class
A large amount of GPUaaS engineering output is not application code:
- contracts
- architecture packets
- runbooks
- readiness bundles
- UAT flow coverage
- deploy/readback utilities
- review and risk models
- security rule-selection artifacts
- documentation portal content
The portal should make that visible, because this work is what makes feature delivery fast, safe, and reviewable.
Current Practical Rule
Evidence should decide what is true.
Chat should explain the evidence, not replace it.
Relationship To Lightweight Review
The review model is intentionally light for low-risk and medium-risk work. That is only safe because the evidence burden is explicit.
When the evidence is strong and the boundary is narrow, a small review shape is enough. When the boundary is live, public, credential-sensitive, or production-claiming, the review and approval shape expands.