{ "schema": "strategy.issue.drafts.enriched.v1", "generatedAt": "2026-05-19T00:04:21Z", "generationContext": "post-deploy-on-pi", "sourceGeneratedAt": "2026-04-22T22:35:30Z", "deployedSha": "44cfa0c6feaccef3072391889a80eceb63b13d60", "evaluatorObservedSha": "44cfa0c6feaccef3072391889a80eceb63b13d60", "recommendationObservedSha": "44cfa0c6feaccef3072391889a80eceb63b13d60", "source": "/deployment/portal/four-pillars-recommendations.json", "publicationPath": "deployment/portal/artifacts/strategy/issue-drafts-enriched.json", "publishedFrom": "artifacts/strategy/issue-drafts-enriched.json", "draftCount": 4, "drafts": [ { "id": "issue-draft-01-oicp", "pillar": "OICP", "title": "[OICP] Close Evidence Gap: Current evidence is mixed and still needs human review", "problemStatement": "Runtime route and deploy proof are strong, but deeper operational workflow proof is still thin. Evaluator now shows degraded with medium confidence. Local route failures: 0, local artifact failures: 0, registry verification passing: yes, proof seed parsed: yes.", "evidenceGap": "Domain-specific execution proof beyond route and API reachability.", "recommendedAction": "Open a tracked follow-up to define and capture one stronger OICP business or workflow proof artifact.", "reasoningSummary": "The runtime is working, but the remaining gap is a multi-step evidence problem better tracked than patched ad hoc.", "escalationTarget": "github-issue", "suggestedLabels": [ "pillar:OICP", "type:evidence-gap", "escalation:none" ], "readiness": "draft", "alternativeApproaches": [ "Attach one real intake record to the workflow proof seed", "Publish one timestamped workflow replay summary from the existing OICP path" ], "risks": [ "Workflow proof stays abstract if it is never tied to a real intake artifact", "Operators may over-trust API health without business-flow evidence" ], "quickWinOption": "Attach one real intake example to the existing OICP proof seed", "deeperFixOption": "Add a replayable OICP workflow artifact with timestamps for each step", "operationalRisk": "OICP can look operational from route health alone while the business workflow still lacks concrete execution proof.", "likelyFailureMode": "The team keeps re-checking /oicp/api/health but still cannot show a completed intake-to-output trail.", "suggestedOwnerType": "operator or workflow owner", "boundedNextStep": "Use the current proof seed and add one real intake artifact plus step timestamps in a single follow-up artifact.", "quickWinArtifact": "Use artifacts/implementation/pillars/oicp-proof-workflow.json as the first workflow-proof attachment because it already shows intake, processing, and output structure.", "nextProofToCreate": "Link this workflow proof to a real intake artifact and capture step timestamps.", "enrichmentSource": "artifact-grounded-local-logic", "enrichmentConfidence": "medium", "enrichmentStatus": "completed", "proofSeedArtifact": "artifacts/implementation/pillars/oicp-proof-workflow.json", "proofSeedPurpose": "Proof seed showing a concrete multi-step OICP workflow with visible execution structure.", "proofSeedGeneratedAt": "2026-04-22T22:42:00Z", "proofSeedFreshness": "stale", "executionMode": "local", "executionModeReason": "Bounded proof-artifact attachment can be created deterministically from the existing OICP workflow seed without modifying repo code or opening issues.", "localExecutionEligible": true, "localExecutionTaskType": "workflow-proof-attachment", "localExecutionOutputArtifact": "artifacts/implementation/pillars/oicp-workflow-proof-attachment.json", "readinessState": "local-executable", "readinessReason": "Bounded local execution is fully specified: proof seed exists, bounded next step exists, and a deterministic local execution task is available now." }, { "id": "issue-draft-02-real-estate", "pillar": "Real Estate", "title": "[Real Estate] Close Evidence Gap: Current evidence is mixed and still needs human review", "problemStatement": "Static publication is proven, but business-data freshness and domain proof remain shallow. Evaluator now shows degraded with medium confidence. Local route failures: 0, local artifact failures: 0, registry verification passing: yes, proof seed parsed: yes.", "evidenceGap": "Fresh domain evidence showing the page reflects current real-estate intelligence, not just static reachability.", "recommendedAction": "Create a GitHub issue to define the next publishable real-estate evidence artifact and freshness rule.", "reasoningSummary": "This is not a runtime break, it is a product-evidence gap that needs tracked follow-up.", "escalationTarget": "github-issue", "suggestedLabels": [ "pillar:Real Estate", "type:evidence-gap", "escalation:none" ], "readiness": "draft", "alternativeApproaches": [ "Add one refreshed property insight snapshot using the existing freshness structure", "Add one operator-verified refresh note tied to the proof seed" ], "risks": [ "Static page availability can mask stale property intelligence", "Freshness claims may drift without a visible last-refresh artifact" ], "quickWinOption": "Publish one refreshed property insight using the existing freshness proof format", "deeperFixOption": "Add a repeatable freshness artifact with refresh actor and refresh timestamp", "operationalRisk": "The pillar can appear healthy because the page is reachable even when the underlying market signal is stale.", "likelyFailureMode": "Operators point to the page as proof, but cannot show when the insight was last refreshed or by whom.", "suggestedOwnerType": "operator or domain analyst", "boundedNextStep": "Create one new real-estate evidence artifact using the proof-seed freshness fields and one current listing insight.", "quickWinArtifact": "Use artifacts/implementation/pillars/real-estate-proof-freshness.json as the quick publishable artifact because it already ties insight freshness to attribution.", "nextProofToCreate": "Add automated freshness recalculation and proof of last refresh actor.", "enrichmentSource": "artifact-grounded-local-logic", "enrichmentConfidence": "medium", "enrichmentStatus": "completed", "proofSeedArtifact": "artifacts/implementation/pillars/real-estate-proof-freshness.json", "proofSeedPurpose": "Proof seed showing timestamped property insight freshness and attribution structure.", "proofSeedGeneratedAt": "2026-05-04T19:16:02Z", "proofSeedFreshness": "stale", "executionMode": "human-review", "executionModeReason": "A publishable real-estate freshness artifact needs operator judgment about current domain facts and should not be synthesized automatically in this MVP.", "localExecutionEligible": false, "readinessState": "human-review", "readinessReason": "The next step depends on human judgment, domain framing, or approval-sensitive choices, so it should stay in review before action." }, { "id": "issue-draft-03-community-sandbox-living-lab", "pillar": "Community Sandbox / Living Lab", "title": "[Community Sandbox / Living Lab] Close Evidence Gap: Current evidence is mixed and still needs human review", "problemStatement": "Primary routes and deploy alignment are proven, but the next confidence gain depends on stronger app-level proof. Evaluator now shows degraded with medium confidence. Local route failures: 0, local artifact failures: 0, registry verification passing: yes, proof seed parsed: yes.", "evidenceGap": "A durable sandbox-specific proof artifact beyond route health, such as a representative flow or usage signal.", "recommendedAction": "Use codex to scope and implement one low-risk sandbox evidence artifact or app-level proof surface.", "reasoningSummary": "The gap is implementation-heavy inside the repo, but still bounded and evidence-oriented.", "escalationTarget": "codex", "suggestedLabels": [ "pillar:Community Sandbox / Living Lab", "type:evidence-gap", "escalation:none" ], "readiness": "draft", "alternativeApproaches": [ "Capture one replayable participant journey using the existing flow proof seed", "Add one usage-signal artifact tied to a concrete sandbox task output" ], "risks": [ "Route health may be mistaken for evidence of a functioning participant loop", "The pillar remains hard to explain without one concrete user journey artifact" ], "quickWinOption": "Capture one concrete join-to-output example using the current sandbox proof flow", "deeperFixOption": "Add a reusable journey replay artifact with timestamps and moderation state transitions", "operationalRisk": "The sandbox can look available while still lacking evidence that a participant can complete a useful path.", "likelyFailureMode": "Health checks pass, but no one can show a recent participant flow that reached a useful output.", "suggestedOwnerType": "operator or product builder", "boundedNextStep": "Record one real sandbox journey in the current proof-seed format and publish it as a linked artifact.", "quickWinArtifact": "Use artifacts/implementation/pillars/sandbox-proof-flow.json as the first replayable journey artifact because it already defines join, task, and output.", "nextProofToCreate": "Capture one replayable example with timestamps and moderation state changes.", "enrichmentSource": "artifact-grounded-local-logic", "enrichmentConfidence": "medium", "enrichmentStatus": "completed", "proofSeedArtifact": "artifacts/implementation/pillars/sandbox-proof-flow.json", "proofSeedPurpose": "Proof seed showing a minimal realistic Community Sandbox user journey from join to useful output.", "proofSeedGeneratedAt": "2026-04-22T22:42:00Z", "proofSeedFreshness": "stale", "executionMode": "escalate", "executionModeReason": "The recommended next step implies app-level or repo-behavior work, so it stays out of the bounded local artifact-only executor.", "localExecutionEligible": false, "readinessState": "ready-for-create", "readinessReason": "The draft is concrete enough to become a tracked GitHub issue, but it points to repo or implementation work outside the bounded local executor." }, { "id": "issue-draft-04-fractional-cto", "pillar": "Fractional CTO", "title": "[Fractional CTO] Close Evidence Gap: Current evidence is mixed and still needs human review", "problemStatement": "The page is deployed and reachable, but the evaluator still lacks strategic proof about offer quality or freshness. Evaluator now shows degraded with medium confidence. Local route failures: 0, local artifact failures: 0, registry verification passing: yes, proof seed parsed: yes.", "evidenceGap": "Clear strategic definition of the next best evidence that would move this pillar beyond static page proof.", "recommendedAction": "Use ChatGPT-level strategic analysis to define what higher-confidence Fractional CTO proof should look like before building it.", "reasoningSummary": "The gap is more about framing the right next evidence than about fixing runtime behavior.", "escalationTarget": "chatgpt", "suggestedLabels": [ "pillar:Fractional CTO", "type:evidence-gap", "escalation:none" ], "readiness": "draft", "alternativeApproaches": [ "Ground the next advisory artifact in one concrete operator scenario", "Add one scored recommendation example using the existing strategy proof seed" ], "risks": [ "Advisory quality stays subjective without one explicit recommendation example", "Static page proof can overstate readiness for real advisory use" ], "quickWinOption": "Create one concrete recommendation example from the existing CTO proof seed", "deeperFixOption": "Add a reusable recommendation template with explicit scoring and decision criteria", "operationalRisk": "The page is reachable, but there is still little proof that the advisory output is specific, current, and reusable.", "likelyFailureMode": "Operators can show the page but cannot point to one bounded recommendation artifact that demonstrates decision quality.", "suggestedOwnerType": "operator or strategy lead", "boundedNextStep": "Turn the current proof seed into one publishable recommendation example with explicit scoring and one client scenario.", "quickWinArtifact": "Use artifacts/implementation/pillars/cto-proof-strategy.json as the first advisory proof artifact because it already captures recommendation and decision logic.", "nextProofToCreate": "Tie the advisory output to a reusable recommendation template with explicit scoring.", "enrichmentSource": "artifact-grounded-local-logic", "enrichmentConfidence": "medium", "enrichmentStatus": "completed", "proofSeedArtifact": "artifacts/implementation/pillars/cto-proof-strategy.json", "proofSeedPurpose": "Proof seed showing a minimal advisory output with structured recommendation and decision logic.", "proofSeedGeneratedAt": "2026-04-22T22:42:00Z", "proofSeedFreshness": "stale", "executionMode": "human-review", "executionModeReason": "Fractional CTO next evidence is strategy-heavy and approval-sensitive, so it should stay with human review before any automation.", "localExecutionEligible": false, "readinessState": "human-review", "readinessReason": "The next step depends on human judgment, domain framing, or approval-sensitive choices, so it should stay in review before action." } ], "enrichmentModel": "deterministic-artifact-grounded-local-logic", "enrichmentSource": "artifact-grounded-local-logic", "enrichmentStatus": "completed", "localExecutionLatest": { "schema": "executor.local-execution.latest.v1", "generatedAt": "2026-04-23T15:26:52Z", "deployedSha": "68d7eb0caba5f56f325a0915c24a07ebc448519a", "selectedPillar": "OICP", "sourceDraftId": "issue-draft-01-oicp", "executionMode": "local", "taskType": "workflow-proof-attachment", "outputArtifactPath": "artifacts/implementation/pillars/oicp-workflow-proof-attachment.json", "status": "success", "error": null } }