Dataface Tasks
    Heartbeat snapshot (JSON)

    v1.0 stability and defect burn-down

    IDM4_V1_0_LAUNCH-CONTEXT_CATALOG_NIMBLE-01
    Statusnot_started
    Priorityp1
    Milestonem4-v1-0-launch
    Ownerdata-ai-engineer-architect

    Problem

    After public launch, the context catalog will accumulate defect reports, edge-case failures, and reliability issues that need systematic tracking and resolution. Without a structured stability program — recurring defect triage, burn-down tracking, and reliability trend monitoring — defects will accumulate faster than they are resolved, eroding user trust. A v1.0 product cannot sustain adoption if known issues pile up without visible progress toward resolution.

    Context

    • After launch, recurring defects in context schema/catalog contracts and Nimble enrichment flows across product surfaces will damage trust faster than new features can restore it, so this phase should prioritize stability over new scope.
    • The goal is to identify the repeat offenders, remove the highest support burden, and make failure patterns measurable enough that the team knows whether quality is improving.
    • Expected touchpoints include dataface/ai/, context-contract docs, eval wiring, and inspect-derived artifacts, bug history, support or incident notes, and any tests or QA gaps that let defects recur.

    Possible Solutions

    • A - Keep mixing bug fixes with feature work opportunistically: preserves flexibility, but lets long-tail reliability work stay perpetually unfinished.
    • B - Recommended: run an explicit stability program: rank defect classes, burn down the highest-frequency issues, and pair fixes with validation so regressions stop recurring.
    • C - Freeze all new work until zero known defects remain: simple in principle, but unrealistic and usually counterproductive.

    Plan

    1. Aggregate the recurring failures in context schema/catalog contracts and Nimble enrichment flows across product surfaces from bugs, support notes, and recent releases, then rank them by user impact and repeat rate.
    2. Turn the top defect classes into a concrete burn-down list with owners, acceptance criteria, and the validation needed to keep each fix from regressing.
    3. Land or schedule the highest-leverage fixes first, including any docs or operator changes that reduce repeat incidents.
    4. Review the remaining defect mix after the first burn-down pass and update the next tranche of work based on actual stability improvements.

    Implementation Progress

    Review Feedback

    • [ ] Review cleared