Mission Control Implementation Maturity and Evidence Map
Historical assessment: this map captures the repository states listed below. For the verification architecture at merged commit ff0524e , continue with the Verification First Software Factory case study. For the current checkout at d902fae
A rapid review of the chapter’s existing Quick Read, principles, definitions, lessons, and review material.
Documentation gaps closed by this review
This review added dedicated mastery chapters for:
- Factory Configuration, workflow contracts, and execution manifests;
- sandbox isolation and publication boundaries;
- model routing, evaluations, and capability selection;
- release, production feedback, and Factory SRE; and
- governed continuous learning and recursive improvement.
The source material was synthesized into enduring principles and versioned case study findings. Mission Control product documentation was not copied.
Review questions
- Which claims are safe to state in present tense?
- Which tests prove a mechanism but not an end-to-end capability?
- Why does PR #61 not satisfy the browser-only lab?
- What evidence would promote remote sandboxing from proposal to Preview?
- Which current mastery chapters must be reverified after PR #64 changes?
Curriculum maturity is not implementation proof.
This case study records scoped implementation claims. Inspect the exact evidence, commit references, gaps, and verification boundaries in the source below.
Review this chapter.
Challenge a claim, boundary, missing failure mode, unclear term, or unsupported evidence statement.
- Claim
- Boundary
- Failure
- Evidence