{
  "id": "page:docs-v6-spec-and-roadmap-implementation-success-metrics",
  "_kind": "Page",
  "_file": "wiki/docs/v6-spec-and-roadmap/implementation/success-metrics.md",
  "_cluster": "wiki",
  "attributes": {
    "nodeKind": "Page",
    "sourcePath": "docs/v6-spec-and-roadmap/implementation/success-metrics.md",
    "sourceKind": "repo-docs",
    "title": "Success Metrics & Validation Criteria",
    "displayName": "Success Metrics & Validation Criteria",
    "slug": "docs/v6-spec-and-roadmap/implementation/success-metrics",
    "articlePath": "wiki/docs/v6-spec-and-roadmap/implementation/success-metrics.md",
    "article": "\n# Success Metrics & Validation Criteria\n\n→ [Implementation Index](../README.md#implementation) | Related: [Testing Framework](../testing-framework.md) | [Performance Considerations](../performance-docs.md)\n\n## Purpose\n\nThis document defines how V6 implementation work is judged successful without implying a broader maturity level than the roadmap currently supports.\n\nThe current minimum acceptable V6 bar is:\n\n- coherent documentation,\n- one validated executable slice,\n- explicit rollback notes,\n- a decision framework for whether any further extraction is earned.\n\nAnything beyond that bar is deferred unless a specific slice owner, command, threshold, and enforcement point already exist.\n\n## Current Normative Scoreboard\n\n| Dimension | What Is Normative Now | Evidence Required |\n|-----------|------------------------|-------------------|\n| Documentation coherence | Core V6 docs tell one bounded story about current reality, accepted slice language, and deferred work | Roadmap, architecture, package, and implementation docs agree on scope and non-goals |\n| Executable proof | At least one narrow slice is implemented and validated | Named commands/tests pass for the slice and rollback is documented |\n| Compatibility discipline | Any compatibility claim is attached to an explicit surface | Compatibility notes and targeted validation for the touched surface |\n| Measurement discipline | A performance or packaging target is only normative when it names a baseline, command, threshold, owner, and miss path | Slice contract or checked-in job definition |\n\n## Deferred Scoreboard\n\nThese remain possible future outcomes, but they are not V6 acceptance criteria today:\n\n- repo-wide performance targets,\n- blanket readiness claims,\n- blanket \"zero regression\" language,\n- trend-based regression detection,\n- repo-wide coverage percentages,\n- generalized monitoring or observability promises that are not tied to an accepted slice.\n\n## Phase Success Criteria\n\n### Phase 0: Baseline And Decision Framing\n\nSuccess means:\n\n- candidate moves are bounded with owners, validation plans, and rollback paths,\n- baseline packaging, performance, and compatibility measurements exist where claims are being made,\n- at least one slice is small enough to validate without cross-repo churn.\n\n### Phase 1: Documentation And Naming Stabilization\n\nSuccess means:\n\n- the docs clearly separate current reality from deferred architecture,\n- target vocabulary is consistent across the core V6 documents,\n- no core explanation depends on speculative APIs, monitoring systems, or repo-wide quality promises.\n\n### Phase 2: First Executable Slice\n\nSuccess means:\n\n- one narrow slice ships with passing targeted commands and tests,\n- compatibility notes and rollback steps are written for the touched surface,\n- any performance or packaging claim for the slice is attached to an explicit measurement contract.\n\n### Phase 3: Evaluate Whether Further Extraction Is Earned\n\nSuccess means:\n\n- the first slice is assessed for payoff versus migration cost,\n- the repo either approves one next bounded slice or explicitly stops at the validated-docs-plus-one-slice state,\n- follow-on work is justified by evidence rather than architectural preference.\n\n### Phase 4: Optional Follow-On Slices Or Polish\n\nSuccess means:\n\n- only accepted slices with named owners and gates introduce stronger quality or performance targets,\n- package-scoped coverage or benchmark gates are only normative where they are declared and enforced,\n- optimization work stays optional unless it directly supports an approved slice or release gate.\n\n## Measurement Contracts\n\n### Performance And Packaging\n\nPackage-level bundle goals, broad memory targets, generic startup goals, and other optimization claims are exploratory until they are attached to a current executable slice.\n\n| Claim Type | Status Today | What Must Exist Before It Becomes Normative |\n|-----------|--------------|---------------------------------------------|\n| Bundle size changes | Exploratory unless slice-scoped | Baseline source, named measurement command, threshold, and fallback |\n| Memory usage claims | Exploratory unless slice-scoped | Scenario definition, named profiling procedure, threshold, and fallback |\n| Startup or plugin latency claims | Exploratory unless slice-scoped | Named benchmark command, threshold, owner, and miss handling |\n| Monitoring-based regression claims | Deferred unless enforced | Maintained harness, owner, alert path, and release gate |\n\nThe linked [Performance Considerations](../performance-docs.md) document is the source of truth for when a number becomes a target instead of a planning hypothesis.\n\n### Quality Metrics\n\n| Aspect | Normative Rule | Validation | Success Condition |\n|--------|----------------|------------|-------------------|\n| Test Coverage | Only package-scoped coverage gates declared by the owning package are normative | Automated coverage tools and package CI jobs | Each declared package gate passes |\n| API Compatibility | Compatibility claims must be tied to an explicit compatibility surface and test suite | Compatibility test suite → [Testing Framework](../testing-framework.md) | Declared compatibility checks pass and documented breaking changes are intentional |\n| Security Validation | Security release claims require documented scanning and review scope | Security scanning → [Security Architecture](../security-architecture.md) | Release-blocking findings are resolved or explicitly accepted |\n\n## Rollback And Risk Readiness\n\nV6 implementation work is only successful when rollback expectations match the actual scope of the phase or slice.\n\n- each accepted phase or slice has a documented rollback procedure with preconditions, restoration steps, and acceptance evidence,\n- data and configuration rollback claims are only made where the affected surface is actually in scope,\n- recoverability language should describe decision points and verification steps, not generic recovery-time promises.\n\n## User And Operator Impact\n\nThe current bar is conservative:\n\n- feature parity claims must reference an explicit workflow inventory,\n- deployment simplification claims must be tied to a validated setup or release path,\n- error-rate, observability, or operations-readiness claims are only normative where baseline collection and ownership exist.\n\n## Validation Procedures\n\n### Automated Validation\n\nUse automated validation language only where the corresponding command or gate exists today.\n\n- CI/build/test commands may support slice-specific quality claims,\n- performance regression detection is deferred unless a maintained benchmark harness, owner, and gate exist,\n- security scanning claims require documented tooling and scope,\n- compatibility validation requires an explicit touched surface and named checks.\n\n### Manual Validation\n\nManual validation remains acceptable for the current maturity level when it is explicit and bounded:\n\n- stakeholder review at phase boundaries with named decisions,\n- user acceptance testing for the touched workflow,\n- security review for the affected surface,\n- performance spot checks only where the slice defines what is being measured.\n\n---\n\n**Related Documents**: [Testing Framework](../testing-framework.md) | [Performance Considerations](../performance-docs.md) | [Risk Mitigation](risk-mitigation.md)\n",
    "documents": []
  },
  "outgoingEdges": [],
  "incomingEdges": [
    {
      "from": "page:docs-v6-spec-and-roadmap-implementation",
      "to": "page:docs-v6-spec-and-roadmap-implementation-success-metrics",
      "kind": "contains_page"
    }
  ]
}