v1.0 stability and defect burn-down

Problem

After public launch, defects in published dashboard templates — broken queries, rendering failures on specific databases, stale example data — accumulate without a systematic process to track, prioritize, and resolve them. There is no defect burn-down cadence and no reliability trend data, so the team cannot distinguish whether template quality is improving or degrading over time. Left unaddressed, published templates quietly rot and undermine user confidence in the catalog.

Context

• After launch, recurring defects in repeatable production, review, and publishing of quickstarts and example dashboards 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 examples/, review/publishing docs, production-line scripts, and dashboard content fixtures, 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 repeatable production, review, and publishing of quickstarts and example dashboards 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