Skip to content

docs(osc): add portfolio follow-up (roadmap-parking-lot-63214833db) #261

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
graphanov wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

docs(osc): add portfolio follow-up (roadmap-parking-lot-63214833db) #261

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
55 changes: 55 additions & 0 deletions .osc/plans/backlog/178-roadmap-parking-lot-63214833db.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
# Plan: .osc portfolio gap roadmap-parking-lot-63214833db

<!-- john-lomein-osc-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?
Loading