From 2629e45897efb13705bac15abe82baf909066995 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Parapunov Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 01:46:30 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] docs(osc): add portfolio follow-up for roadmap-parking-lot-63214833db --- .../178-roadmap-parking-lot-63214833db.md | 55 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+) create mode 100644 .osc/plans/backlog/178-roadmap-parking-lot-63214833db.md diff --git a/.osc/plans/backlog/178-roadmap-parking-lot-63214833db.md b/.osc/plans/backlog/178-roadmap-parking-lot-63214833db.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..d88e0713 --- /dev/null +++ b/.osc/plans/backlog/178-roadmap-parking-lot-63214833db.md @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@ +# Plan: .osc portfolio gap roadmap-parking-lot-63214833db + + + +## Status + +backlog + +## Context + +john-lomein's `.osc` portfolio steward detected a `roadmap_parking_lot_unplanned` gap. + +A ROADMAP parking-lot item has no obvious active/backlog plan representation. + +Source evidence: + +- ROADMAP.md parking lot item: +- Templates for stakeholder/client-facing cockpit modes. + +GitHub intake: #260 + +## Goal + +Resolve the detected roadmap/backlog/active-plan gap with a small, source-grounded follow-up that keeps the public roadmap and `.osc` work record coherent. + +## Constraints / Out of scope + +- Do not merge, publish, release, dispatch workflows, change repository settings, or touch secrets from this plan alone. +- Keep public wording owner-neutral and avoid local/private machine context. +- Do not overclaim proof, compliance, or runtime authority. +- If the gap is a false positive, close this plan with evidence rather than forcing implementation. + +## Files to touch + +- `ROADMAP.md` or relevant docs only if the gap requires wording/priority clarification. +- `.osc/plans/active/*` or `.osc/plans/backlog/*` only through normal plan/amendment flow. +- Source/test files only if a later accepted issue narrows implementation scope. + +## Acceptance criteria + +- [ ] The gap is confirmed against current `ROADMAP.md` and `.osc/plans` source truth. +- [ ] The chosen outcome is one of: create/update a real follow-up plan, mark the older backlog entry superseded/done with evidence, amend the active plan, or reject the steward finding as a false positive. +- [ ] Any public issue/PR comments use compact Status / Evidence / Next wording. +- [ ] Verification commands appropriate to touched files pass before closeout. + +## Verification steps + +1. Re-run the portfolio steward dry-run and confirm this gap no longer appears, or document why it remains intentionally open. +2. Run the repository's configured verification for any touched code/docs. +3. Run `git diff --check`. + +## Open questions + +- Should this gap become implementation work, roadmap clarification, backlog cleanup, or a rejected false-positive record? +- If implementation is needed, which existing active/backlog plan should own it?