Feasibility Review Framework & Rubrics

Feb 20, 2026

SEOCHO Core Engine

System AI

Synced automatically from seocho/docs/PHILOSOPHY_FEASIBILITY_REVIEW.md

This document operationalizes philosophy-level decisions into an execution review framework for multi-role experts.

Purpose

• verify whether SEOCHO philosophy can be delivered with current stack and constraints
• identify blocking risks before implementation scales
• define measurable Go/Conditional Go/No-Go criteria

Required Panel Roles

• frontend engineer
• backend engineer
• software architect
• software engineer (application/platform)
• database engineer (DBA)

Review Dimensions

Evaluate each dimension with Green, Amber, or Red.

Dimension	Key Question	Evidence
Semantic Layer Viability	Can SHACL-like rules be inferred, validated, and promoted safely?	/rules/assess, profile/export results
Ontology Governance	Are .ttl/hint/profile artifacts versioned and rollback-safe?	git history, ADR, release notes
Agent Topology Integrity	Is graph-instance <-> graph-agent 1:1 mapping enforced?	runtime config, orchestration traces
Router Allocation Quality	Does router choose target graphs with explainable confidence?	routing metadata, override logs
DAG Contract Reliability	Does UI render topology only from backend contract fields?	trace payload schema tests
Data/Query Safety	Are query surfaces policy-gated and workspace-safe?	policy checks, audit traces
Cost/Latency Envelope	Can end-to-end flow stay within target SLO and budget?	p95 latency, token/runtime cost

Role-Specific Checklists

Frontend Engineer

• topology lines are rendered from backend metadata (node_id, parent_id, parent_ids)
• no heuristic-only lineage reconstruction for production path
• fallback UI behavior is defined when topology is partial/missing
• trace canvas scales under fan-out/fan-in orchestration load

Backend Engineer

• trace schema contract is deterministic and versioned
• router/semantic flows expose confidence and decision reasons
• policy checks guard runtime endpoints consistently
• workspace_id is propagated through all runtime contracts

Software Architect

• control plane and data plane boundaries remain explicit
• ontology governance path stays offline-heavy (not hot-path blocking)
• ADR coverage exists for major orchestration/contract changes
• failure modes have deterministic degradation strategy

Software Engineer (Platform/Application)

• end-to-end flow is testable with reproducible fixtures
• operational runbooks cover ingest -> rules -> routing -> response
• observability fields are sufficient for incident replay
• integration contracts across modules avoid hidden side effects

Database Engineer (DBA)

• DozerDB/Neo4j compatibility assumptions are validated continuously
• fulltext/index lifecycle is automated and idempotent
• constraint/export plans are reviewed before governance promotion
• query patterns are bounded for performance and operational safety

Decision Rubric

• Go: no Red, and at most 2 Amber, with owners/dates assigned
• Conditional Go: 1 Red or 3-4 Amber, with mandatory mitigation plan
• No-Go: 2+ Red, or unresolved safety/governance blocker

Risk Register Template

ID	Risk	Severity	Owner Role	Mitigation	Trigger
R1	Example: ontology/profile drift	High	Architect	version pin + compatibility test	failed export/readiness

30/60/90 Plan Template

• Day 0-30:
  • enforce schema tests for topology contract
  • baseline /rules/assess thresholds and publish pass criteria
• Day 31-60:
  • close confidence/override loop with operator UX and audit export
  • add replay-grade Opik trace dashboards for router/debate/semantic
• Day 61-90:
  • production hardening for index/constraint lifecycle
  • define release gate tying ADR + readiness + SLO checks

KPI Baseline

• rule readiness pass rate (ready ratio) per ingestion batch
• router allocation precision (verified answerable-route ratio)
• semantic disambiguation confidence calibration (override rate vs confidence)
• topology contract compliance (trace payload schema pass rate)
• p95 end-to-end latency by mode (router, debate, semantic)
• incident replay completeness (trace-to-root-cause success ratio)

Initial Panel Synthesis (2026-02-20)

Decision: Conditional Go

Primary reasons:

• philosophy and architecture intent are explicit and well aligned
• SHACL-like readiness and DAG contract directions are implemented
• operational hardening remains for confidence calibration, SLO envelopes, and governance automation

Immediate priorities:

1. treat topology payload schema as a release-blocking contract
2. enforce readiness gates before rule/ontology promotion
3. publish confidence policy for router/semantic fallback behavior

SEOCHO Runtime Update: Strict E2E Smoke Tests and the Open Source Playbook

SEOCHO Design Philosophy & Operating Principles