Skip to content

[program]: govern comparevi as an autonomous capital deployment fabric #1694

@svelderrainruiz

Description

@svelderrainruiz

Summary

Treat the entire comparevi control plane as an autonomous capital deployment fabric.

Why

The system is no longer just a queue runner or a multi-lane coding helper. It now allocates funded execution capacity across live, background, hosted, remote, and shadow lanes. That means we need one governing model that connects:

  • lane utilization
  • queue continuity
  • spend attribution
  • invoice turns and funding windows
  • consumer-proving evidence
  • release-candidate promotion

Governing objective

Maximize validated throughput per funded dollar while keeping consumer-proving health green and eliminating dark spend / dark idle time.

Required properties

  • no dark spend
    • every live/background/hosted/shadow turn attributable to lane, issue, repo, provider, model, and funding window
  • no dark idle
    • every non-working lane classified as waiting-hosted, waiting-merge, policy-paused, blocked, prewarm, or operator-steering
  • no silent funding drift
    • invoice turns and overlapping funding windows must reconcile without double-counting outcomes
  • no queue starvation
    • merge queue and lane pool should be managed as capital-allocation surfaces, not passive status boards

Primary metrics

  • sustained logical lane allocation
  • spend attribution coverage
  • idle classification coverage
  • validated throughput per funded dollar
  • merge-queue occupancy / refill latency
  • heuristic-vs-invoice calibration drift

Initial success floors

  • at least 50% sustained logical lane allocation
  • 100% spend attribution coverage for tracked turns
  • 100% idle classification coverage for managed logical lanes
  • nonzero merge-queue inventory unless the actionable issue queue is genuinely near empty

Notes

This is a program umbrella. Existing issues for lane allocation, spend telemetry, invoice turns, calibration, model selection, queue continuity, and template verification should roll up under this operating model rather than drifting independently.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    ciCI/CD, workflows, and pipeline changesgovernancePolicy, approvals, and operating modelprogramProgram-level initiativestanding-excludedOpen issue is intentionally kept out of standing-priority auto-selection

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions