Assurance source reference
Production Readiness Layer Pack
Complete canonical source reference from docs/PRODUCTION_READINESS_LAYER_PACK.md.
Production Readiness Layer Pack
This pack turns “real full stack is more than frontend plus backend” into a control-level assurance model. It is a lane pack inside Valdris, not the whole SDLC.
Thirteen layers
| Layer | Enterprise question | Catalog controls |
|---|---|---|
| Frontend | Are critical client journeys accessible, correct, and within performance budgets? | accessibility, behavior, performance |
| Backend/API logic | Are contracts compatible and timeout/retry/idempotency/failure paths observable? | contract, failure, trace |
| Database/storage | Are migrations, integrity boundaries, retention, backup, and restore proven? | migration, integrity, recovery |
| Auth/permissions/RLS | Does every operation enforce server-side and tenant-safe authorization across the identity lifecycle? | authz, tenant, lifecycle |
| Hosting/deployment | Is promotion attributable, target-environment health measured, and rollback exercised? | promotion, health, rollback |
| Cloud/compute | Is topology reproducible, least-privilege, drift-aware, regional, owned, and cost-bounded? | IaC, boundary, cost |
| CI/CD/version control | Do required checks, supply-chain scans, provenance, and approvals protect the release? | gates, supply chain, provenance |
| Security | Are current threats, secrets, vulnerabilities, and trust boundaries governed? | threat, secrets, vulnerability |
| Rate limiting | Are limits, overload behavior, retry storms, and usage meters controlled? | policy, failure, metering |
| Caching/CDN | Are identity-aware keys, invalidation, freshness, purge, and tenant isolation correct? | key, invalidation, isolation |
| Load balancing/scaling | Are capacity, progressive delivery, abort, routing, and failure modes tested? | capacity, progressive, failover |
| Error tracking/logs/observability | Are flows correlated, SLO-owned, alertable, and privacy-safe? | telemetry, SLO, redaction |
| Availability/recovery/DR | Are workload-specific objectives, restore/failover, and incident roles exercised? | objectives, restore, incident |
The machine catalog is controls/production-layers.v2.json. Its dependency fields form an acyclic assurance prerequisite graph.
Per-run artifact
Every production-impacting run writes production/layer-assessment.json using uash.production-readiness.v2.
A required layer must name its owner and every catalog control. Every passing control contains typed evidence. A non-applicable layer uses applicability: "not-applicable", status: "skipped", and a precise reason. Intake may temporarily mark a layer potentially-affected in run/route.json, but that state must resolve before the v2 finish-line artifact is written.
Typed evidence is validated rather than trusted as prose:
- repository-contained, hash-bound artifacts;
- zero-exit commands with output digests;
- metrics whose operators and thresholds are recomputed;
- scoped approvals granted by a named human;
- digest-bound provider reports.
Enterprise and regulated artifact evidence also binds commit and environment. See docs/ENTERPRISE_CONTROL_MODEL_V2.md for the complete contract.
Validate
npm run production:gate
Legacy uash.production-readiness.v1 history remains readable, but the commission generator emits v2.
Skip and finish rules
- No canonical layer may be silently omitted.
- A required layer or control cannot be skipped.
failed,pending,blocked,required, andneeds_approvalblock completion.- Approval authorizes a risk decision; it does not turn missing or failing technical evidence into a pass.
- The finish line requires every applicable control to pass and every non-applicable layer to carry a workload-specific reason.
