0% read on this device
Browse the curriculum

Start Here

Vision

First Principles

Operating Model

Domain Model

Agent Factory

Runtime Architecture

AI Engineering

Autonomous Workflows

Verification & Delivery

Factory Platform

Quality Engineering

Security & Governance

Case Studies

Labs

Interview Practice

Research Journal

Reference

Curriculum/Labs/A focused view of boundaries, contracts, state, authority, failure paths, and tradeoffs drawn from this chapter.
Labs5 min readlabassessment lab

Capstone Architecture and Executive Defense

The capstone proves personal mastery of the supported Mission Control V1 path, not aspirational factory autonomy. It passes only when you can truthfully say:

Status: Draft for studyRisk: highLifecycle: execute · verify · learnContent reviewed 2026-08-11Maturity guide →
Claim boundaryThis chapter references implementation evidence. Inspect its evidence boundary before treating a claim as proven.
architecture mode

A focused view of boundaries, contracts, state, authority, failure paths, and tradeoffs drawn from this chapter.

Hands-on lab

The capstone proves personal mastery of the supported Mission Control V1 path, not aspirational factory autonomy. It passes only when you can truthfully say:

Execute the existing Markdown instructions and retain the required output and evidence.

practice5 min chapter

5. Current Mission Control readiness gate

Before scheduling the accepted run, verify:

  • the selected Mission Control commit is merged, clean, and recorded;
  • the GitHub App is configured for the controlled repository;
  • an active Governance Policy and passing Factory Configuration exist;
  • the browser path creates the Mission and approved Plan without database shortcuts;
  • the supported executor, worktree, publication, and receipt path is enabled;
  • deterministic validation is real, not a mock adapter;
  • reviewer identities and evidence storage are available; and
  • the baseline can be reset without deleting retained proof.

At the current study boundary, these are not all proven. Draft PR #64-era execution work and the subsequent continuous-quality design provide components, but the capstone must cite the final merged commit and fresh browser evidence.

7. Required failure and recovery

Trigger one meaningful failure: preflight denial, stale lease, executor timeout, validation failure, head-SHA mismatch, duplicate completion, cancellation, or GitHub publication failure. Show:

  • classification and operator-visible state;
  • the authoritative record and immutable history;
  • whether retry is permitted and which budget applies;
  • creation of a new Attempt where required;
  • idempotent handling of late or duplicate events;
  • evidence retained, invalidated, or made stale; and
  • recovery without direct-state mutation or authority bypass.

8. Architecture defense

Whiteboard from memory:

Business intent
 -> governed Mission and executable specification
 -> approved Plan and Quality Contract
 -> authorized WorkOrder
 -> Task and immutable Attempts
 -> isolated agent/tool execution
 -> artifact and supply-chain provenance
 -> independent verification and evidence graph
 -> policy eligibility and human decision
 -> PR/release governance
 -> production observation and governed learning

Overlay control, execution, quality, delivery, data, security, and human-governance planes. For each boundary name owner, record, identity, failure mode, recovery, and proof.

Evidence boundary

Curriculum maturity is not implementation proof.

This chapter defines architecture or practice. It does not by itself prove a corresponding production implementation.

CurriculumDraft for studyImplementation evidenceNot asserted hereInspect evidence map →
External review

Review this chapter.

Challenge a claim, boundary, missing failure mode, unclear term, or unsupported evidence statement.

  • Claim
  • Boundary
  • Failure
  • Evidence