docs: reconcile internal strategy model with restored horizon authority

research/ai-adoption/assignment-evidence.json

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
     {
       "id": "q1",
       "source_section": "Assignment 1",
-      "requirement": "Month 1\u20136 concrete priorities and change starting solo, CTO reporting, no formal team authority",
+      "requirement": "Month 1–6 concrete priorities and change starting solo, CTO reporting, no formal team authority",
       "pages": [
         "six-months-roadmap",
         "six-months-target"

research/ai-adoption/strategy-coverage.json

@@ -328,7 +328,7 @@
       "route": "/strategy/six-months-roadmap/",
       "question": "What does a solo architect do month by month without team authority?",
       "inputs": "PDF constraints, current AI practice, willing partners and unknown capacity",
-      "action_or_decision": "Month 1\u20136 discovery, bounded experiment, compare, selective transfer and CTO investment decision",
+      "action_or_decision": "Month 1–6 discovery, bounded experiment, compare, selective transfer and CTO investment decision",
       "output": "Proposed six-month plan with dependencies, evidence, capacity and stop choices",
       "next_or_feedback": "/strategy/stage-02-autonomous-agent/",
       "review": "PDF assignment retained independently of long-term destination; EXP-01 lives in six-month action plan"

research/ai-adoption/strategy-model.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "schema_version": "1.0.0",
   "status": "proposed-target-not-approved-or-deployed",
-  "scope": "Six-month assignment-led Strategy with optional legacy governance/target reference; organization model is not PDF evidence. No runtime changes authorized.",
+  "scope": "Long-term human-controlled autonomous SDLC Target and broad Roadmap, with distinct six-month contribution and action plan plus Beyond bridge. Full30-route reading contract is strategy-coverage.json. Organization model is not PDF evidence; no runtime changes authorized.",
   "organization": {
     "Product": [
       "Product Management",
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
     {
       "id": "target-operating-model",
       "title": "Target",
-      "purpose": "Solo CTO-sponsored improvement plan; realistic outcomes, assumptions and presentation; conditional target topology."
+      "purpose": "Long-term human-directed, guided and reviewed autonomous SDLC destination; original topology and supporting controls, not six-month promise or present authority."
     },
     {
       "id": "skills-governance",
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@
     {
       "id": "roadmap",
       "title": "Roadmap",
-      "purpose": "Assess current code quality and delivery processes, close critical gaps, then pilot, expand and sustain AI adoption."
+      "purpose": "Broad progression from skills/practices adoption to controlled autonomous capabilities: Delivery first, later phase order undecided, evidence and separate human decisions without fixed timing."
     }
   ],
   "diagram": {
@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Split easy tasks or omit starts; reconcile starts to approved backlog and audit acceptance rubrics.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Unresolved/missing terminal outcomes remain in denominator with unknown count and known-outcome coverage; do not label them failed. Invalid/missing start excluded from calculation but flagged as orphan evidence.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 6,
         "denominator": 10,
         "result": 60.0,
@@ -316,7 +316,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Choose easy labels or hide negative cases; freeze corpus and independently review labels.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Unknown activation/relevance is unscorable; publish missing count and deny qualification if planned coverage incomplete.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 18,
         "denominator": 20,
         "result": 90.0,
@@ -350,7 +350,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Overtrigger to maximize recall; always pair with precision and negative cases.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Report evaluation coverage; null if no relevant labeled tasks.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 18,
         "denominator": 24,
         "result": 75.0,
@@ -386,7 +386,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Remove silent devices or trust declared versions; reconcile managed inventory and separately label attestation trust.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Unknown/stale versions count outside numerator, inside denominator. Show inventory discovery coverage versus eligible device roster; if roster unknown metric is provisional.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 8,
         "denominator": 10,
         "result": 80.0,
@@ -421,7 +421,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Invocation quotas and coercion; no target usage count, split server/client/self-report origins.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Show observed lower bound and telemetry/response coverage; missing usage unknown rather than non-use.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 7,
         "denominator": 10,
         "result": 70.0,
@@ -456,7 +456,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Timestamp rewriting and cherry-picking fast work; lock change mapping and show undeployed backlog age.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Missing commit mapping or negative/skewed duration excluded from numeric sample, reported explicitly; no zero substitution.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 120,
         "denominator": 10,
         "result": 12.0,
@@ -490,7 +490,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Split deployments without value; pair with success, rework and failure measures.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Missing feed periods not zero; report coverage and no unqualified overall rate when period incomplete.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 14,
         "denominator": 7,
         "result": 2.0,
@@ -526,7 +526,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Avoid incident links or relabel intervention planned; reconcile rollbacks/hotfixes independently.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Known failures / all eligible deployments is a lower bound where incident linkage incomplete; label provisional and report unknown links.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 2,
         "denominator": 20,
         "result": 10.0,
@@ -561,7 +561,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Premature recovery declarations or omit hard cases; require operational readback and carry unresolved ages.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Unresolved failures reported separately and excluded only from recovered-duration distribution; prevent declaring improvement without their visibility.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 9,
         "denominator": 3,
         "result": 3.0,
@@ -596,7 +596,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Call hotfixes planned; freeze reason and independently reconcile incident/deployment links.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Unknown classification stays denominator; observed numerator is lower bound until reconciliation; show classification coverage.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 3,
         "denominator": 20,
         "result": 15.0,
@@ -631,7 +631,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Shorten follow-up or downgrade severity; freeze horizon and rubric and independently sample defects.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Unknown linkage is a coverage warning; no fabricated clean outcome. Show absolute defect and severe incident counts as well.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 2,
         "denominator": 20,
         "result": 10.0,
@@ -667,7 +667,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Hide incidents or inflate harmless trials; absolute severity counts and fixed task mix accompany rate.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Unknown outcomes remain visible; zero detected effects never proves safety. Missing audits make rate provisional.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 1,
         "denominator": 100,
         "result": 1.0,
@@ -702,7 +702,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Count tokens only or hide labor/failures; reconcile invoice and allocation totals without double counting.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Missing cost buckets produce partial estimate plus coverage, not a total. Mixed currency requires dated approved conversion; zero accepted outcomes = null with full cost shown.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 600,
         "denominator": 6,
         "result": 100.0,
@@ -717,14 +717,14 @@
       "id": "human-experience",
       "name": "Verification confidence and cognitive load",
       "dimension": "experience",
-      "definition": "Three separate anonymous 1\u20135 item distributions: confidence in verifying output, manageable workload, usefulness. Primary item: verification confidence mean; report full distributions and response rate.",
+      "definition": "Three separate anonymous 1–5 item distributions: confidence in verifying output, manageable workload, usefulness. Primary item: verification confidence mean; report full distributions and response rate.",
       "formula": {
-        "numerator": "Sum valid 1\u20135 verification-confidence responses, one per participant per survey wave",
+        "numerator": "Sum valid 1–5 verification-confidence responses, one per participant per survey wave",
         "denominator": "Count valid responses to that item",
         "expression": "N / D",
         "aggregation": "mean"
       },
-      "unit": "points (1\u20135)",
+      "unit": "points (1–5)",
       "eligible_population": "Invited eligible cohort at fixed survey wave; voluntary responses.",
       "exclusions": "Invalid/out-of-range answers and superseded duplicate submission; nonresponders stay in response-rate denominator.",
       "source_events_tool": [
@@ -736,11 +736,11 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Pressure to respond positively; no manager access to individual responses, avoid identifying free text.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Report valid response count / invited count and item nonresponse; no imputation. Suppress people cohorts below five.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 36,
         "denominator": 10,
         "result": 3.6,
-        "unit": "points (1\u20135)"
+        "unit": "points (1–5)"
       }
     },
     {
@@ -773,7 +773,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Rubber-stamp review dates; require linked regression/security/usefulness evidence.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Missing owner/date/evidence outside numerator; show ownerless, deprecated-in-use and revoked-in-use absolute counts.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 9,
         "denominator": 12,
         "result": 75.0,
@@ -808,7 +808,7 @@
       "gaming_risk": "Weaken rubric or count drafts as customer benefit; lock rubric and independently audit acceptance.",
       "missing_data_handling": "Unknown follow-up stays denominator with unresolved count; no claim actual business outcome changed without source evidence.",
       "illustrative_example": {
-        "label": "SYNTHETIC \u2014 illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
+        "label": "SYNTHETIC — illustrative, not Eldorado observations",
         "numerator": 8,
         "denominator": 10,
         "result": 80.0,
@@ -1157,6 +1157,6 @@
       ]
     }
   ],
-  "open_decisions_reference": "strategy-blueprint.md \u2014 Internal evidence mapping and open decisions",
+  "open_decisions_reference": "strategy-blueprint.md — Internal evidence mapping and open decisions",
   "publication_boundary": "Evidence mapping, research and open decisions stay outside reader-facing docs/static/search; proposed quality/privacy values must be visibly target settings, never current installation claims."
 }