fdeops 3.9.20 → 3.10.0

package/skills/fde/references/plan.md

@@ -131,6 +131,16 @@ Write migration strategy to `decisions.md` under `## Migration`. Each service ge
 
 Never quietly update tasks. Name the reset: update `reality.md` and `success.md`, one paragraph in `decisions.md` - what changed, why, new sequence. An undocumented reset looks like drift; a documented one looks like the FDE caught something important.
 
+## Worked example
+
+Acme, after discover: the reconciliation job is unowned, Marco's spreadsheet is the real fallback.
+
+**Now** is three tasks, not eight. Task 1 is *failures reach a named human* — delivers a page to a rota, accepts "kill the job mid-run → the on-call is paged within 15 min", touches the job wrapper and the alert config, rollback is re-disable the route, verify by killing it in staging. Value promised: `risk-mitigation — a silent failure becomes a 15-minute one`.
+
+The kill list in `decisions.md` is where the plan earns its keep: the rewrite of the reconciliation service that Tom keeps proposing goes there — *deferred, the failure mode is ownership not architecture (Priya accepted, Jun 12)* — along with the finance dashboard finance asked for directly. Both stay visible so the same argument is not re-litigated in week 4 without a receipt.
+
+First visible slice goes to Marco, not Priya: he is the one whose morning changes, and his confirmation is what makes the sponsor update true.
+
 ## Principles
 
 - Plan from success backwards, not from today forwards.

package/skills/fde/references/scope-defense.md

@@ -61,6 +61,16 @@ Evidence-based: point to `decisions.md` scope receipts with dates and requesters
 
 Weekly check: count the scope receipts since last conversation. Three or more unaddressed → recommend the accumulation conversation to the FDE. Zero → "scope holding, `success.md` current."
 
+## Worked example
+
+Acme, week 5. Nothing has been formally added, and the slice is a week late.
+
+The pattern shows in three receipts, not one argument: a "quick" finance CSV export (Jun 20, half a day, from Denise directly), retry-logic cleanup asked for mid-build (Jun 24, one day, Tom), and a dashboard tile "while you're in there" (Jun 27, half a day). Each was individually reasonable; together they are the slip.
+
+Three-bucket response, applied at the moment of the third ask rather than in a retrospective: the CSV export goes to Next with an accepted trade (it displaces the runbook polish), the retry cleanup goes to the kill list in `decisions.md` with the blast-radius reason, and the tile is absorbed because it is genuinely twenty minutes — logged anyway, since an unlogged absorption is the one that gets forgotten in the accumulation conversation.
+
+That conversation happens with Priya at three receipts, with the dates on screen: "these are the four asks, here is the two days, here is what moved." Not a complaint — a decision she gets to make, with evidence, before the deadline makes it for her.
+
 ## Principles
 
 - "Let me place it" is the phrase. Not "no," not "sure."

package/skills/fde/references/ship.md

@@ -186,6 +186,16 @@ Adoption isn't a handoff-stage problem - it starts during build. Software that l
 
 Before 100%: canary clean, business metric verified, pulse written into `delivery.md`. Also green: value bucket named, audit receipt dated, eval receipt **n/a or pass**, **intent vs diff clean** (no unresolved SPLIT/DROP). Missing any of those → not green. For enterprise-scale: scale-readiness gate passed before broad rollout.
 
+## Worked example
+
+Acme, shipping the failure-routing slice into a payments environment on a Thursday.
+
+Readiness scoring catches two things the diff does not. The audit receipt is missing: the operating map says Marco's manual re-run is the fallback, and nobody has checked whether the new page fires *before* his morning run or after — if after, the alert changes nothing. That gets walked and cited before deploy. Second, the intent-vs-diff read shows the PR also touches the settlement retry that was deferred in build; it comes out.
+
+Pre-blast challenge: "what does this break if it fires at 3am and nobody acks?" Answer: nothing breaks, but the rota is not yet agreed — so the deploy waits on a name, not on code. That is a one-day slip that prevents a fake green.
+
+After deploy: `delivery.md` ship receipt with the audit cite, the kill test evidence, and the rollback line. Eval receipt: n/a, no AI in this path.
+
 ## Principles
 
 - A deployment without a tested rollback is reckless.

package/skills/fde/references/stakeholder-radar.md

@@ -45,6 +45,17 @@ In every engagement where an external FDE was brought in, an internal team was p
 - **Use their language.** In every meeting. They hear their words coming back and they feel consulted, not replaced.
 - **Make them look right.** Credit their prior work in your artifacts. They protect you if they feel respected; they wait for your mistake if they don't.
 
+**6. Before a decision meeting: pre-wire, then pre-mortem.**
+
+A recommendation that needs several people to say yes is not won in the room; it is won in the week before it. When the FDE is heading into a go/no-go, a budget ask, or anything that visibly costs someone territory:
+
+- **Sort by position, not by seniority.** Firm supporter / firm opponent / **swing**. Effort goes almost entirely to swings - supporters need reinforcement, not persuasion, and a firm opponent is rarely moved by a louder version of the argument that already failed.
+- **Name what each swing is protecting.** The objection voiced in a meeting is usually a proxy: headcount, budget, credibility, control, or the reporting line that gets messier. Write the underlying motivation next to the stated objection - they are different sentences.
+- **Sequence the conversations.** Whoever makes the others easier to win goes first; whoever is reassured by seeing names already on board goes last. One-on-one for anyone who would lose face conceding in a group.
+- **Pre-mortem the meeting.** "It's Thursday, the meeting went badly - who sank it, and with what sentence?" That sentence is the pre-wire you are missing. If the answer is a specific person's objection, their conversation happens *before* the room convenes, not in it.
+
+Log the sequence and the pre-mortem sentence in `context.md` as the plan for the week - a pre-wire plan that lives only in the FDE's head is not a plan.
+
 ## Artifact
 
 **`stakeholders.md`** - updated with evidence-dated signal changes:
@@ -61,6 +72,16 @@ Signal changes get a dated evidence note. A signal that moved without evidence l
 
 One line per stakeholder who changed signal this week. If nobody changed: "Map stable - next check <date>." If a ghost appeared or a resistor went quiet: name it, recommend the move, and update `context.md` with the action.
 
+## Worked example
+
+Acme, week 6. Priya's replies have gone from same-day to two days, and a phase-2 go/no-go is scheduled for Thursday.
+
+Two signals, not one feeling: response time doubled *and* a finance analyst nobody introduced started asking when the work completes. That combination is an invisible escalation — someone above Priya is asking, and the meeting is already happening without the FDE.
+
+Positions: Priya is a supporter under pressure. Marco is a supporter who does not vote. Denise (finance) is the swing, and what she is protecting is not the budget line she cites — it is that her team's escalation started this and she has nothing to show her own director. Raj is a firm opponent on the rewrite question, and no amount of the same argument moves him.
+
+Sequence: Denise one-on-one Tuesday with the incident numbers in her units, then Priya Wednesday, so Priya walks in already knowing finance is not going to object. Pre-mortem sentence: *"Denise says 'we still don't know if this actually caught anything'"* — which is precisely why Tuesday exists. `stakeholders.md` records `Priya | sponsor | green→amber | reply latency 1d → 2d, unintroduced analyst (Jul 3)`; `context.md` carries the sequence.
+
 ## Principles
 
 - Signals are evidence-based, not feeling-based. "Seemed distant" doesn't move a signal; "stopped responding to three messages" does.

package/skills/fde/references/status.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
 | **A — Answer** | What you recommend / what happens next week (≤3 bullets) | plan Now lane, delivery promised→measured |
 
 Then add, still on the same page:
-1. **Value this week** - from the value ledger: promised → measured (or "pending") with evidence citation.
+1. **Value this week** - from the value ledger: promised → measured (or "pending") → **accepted by whom**, with evidence citation. A measured number nobody on the customer side has agreed to is written as `claimed`, and the Ask never rests on it - if the whole case for the next phase is a claimed number, the real ask this week is "who signs off that this is real?".
 2. **Kill / defer reminder** - one line from the plan kill list so scope fights stay visible.
 3. **Hostile Q prep** - three questions a skeptical sponsor will ask, with one-line answers from memory.
 
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Append the draft to `delivery.md` under `## Status - <date>` using the SCQA head
 **C:** ...
 **Q:** ...
 **A:** ...
-**Value ledger:** promised … / measured … (evidence)
+**Value ledger:** promised … / measured … / accepted by … (evidence) — or `claimed, unaccepted`
 **Kill list reminder:** …
 **Hostile Qs:** 1) … 2) … 3) …
 ```
@@ -43,6 +43,16 @@ Append the draft to `delivery.md` under `## Status - <date>` using the SCQA head
 
 Walk the FDE through the Complication and the Ask - confirm the framing matches what the sponsor can hear right now (check `stakeholders.md` signal first: a red-signal sponsor gets a different opening than a green one).
 
+## Worked example
+
+Acme, week 3, Priya's Friday update.
+
+**S:** failure routing is live; detection is 12 min against the 4h baseline in `success.md`. **C** leads with the bad news, not the win: the second incident was acked 40 minutes late because the rota has one name on it, and that name was on leave. **Q:** one ask — a second name on the rota by Wednesday. **A:** three bullets, top of the Now lane.
+
+Value ledger line: `promised 4h → 15min / measured 12min over 2 incidents / accepted by — (Marco confirmed operationally, finance not yet)` → written as `claimed, unaccepted`, which is what makes the Ask honest rather than a victory lap.
+
+Hostile Q prep, from memory not imagination: "why did we pay for alerting we already had?" → the receipt from `decisions.md` and the disabled-alerting finding in `reality.md`. Kill list reminder: the service rewrite is still deferred, accepted by Priya on Jun 12.
+
 ## Principles
 
 - SCQA every time. Situation → Complication → Ask → Answer.

package/templates/.fde/delivery.md

@@ -4,9 +4,9 @@
 
 ## Value ledger
 
-| Date | Slice | Bucket | Promised | Measured | Evidence | Rollback |
-|------|-------|--------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
-| | | *(cost-save / risk-mitigation / revenue-uplift)* | *(what we said it would change)* | *(what actually changed, or pending)* | *(who/when/metric)* | |
+| Date | Slice | Bucket | Promised | Measured | Accepted by | Evidence | Rollback |
+|------|-------|--------|----------|----------|-------------|----------|----------|
+| | | *(cost-save / risk-mitigation / revenue-uplift)* | *(what we said it would change)* | *(what actually changed, or pending)* | *(customer-side name + date, or it stays claimed)* | *(who/when/metric)* | |
 
 ## Ship receipts