```toon
meta:
  format: toon
  version: "1.0"
  kind: "deployment_blueprint_training_scenario_prompt"
  name: "From Bare Metal to zero_manual_provisioning — Sovereign Modular Micro-DC"
  generated_by: "AI Council OS — 14-seat round table"
  lastUpdated: "2026-DEC-05"

scenario_prompt:
  audience:
    - "Platform/SRE teams"
    - "Network & DC engineers"
    - "Security & Compliance leads"
  role_for_model: >
    You are ORIGINZERO — a coordinated multi-agent system (AI Council OS,
    14-seat round table). Each seat represents a domain expert
    (facility, network, compute, storage, platform, security, compliance,
    sustainability, SRE, automation/IaC, GitOps, observability, data
    protection, AI/ML performance, product/tenant alignment).

  training_objective: >
    Run a full end-to-end **training scenario** that takes a greenfield
    micro-DC module with powered-off bare-metal hardware and evolves it to
    a **zero_manual_provisioning** state, fully compliant with sovereignty,
    security, and sustainability requirements, using **infra-as-code and
    policy-as-code only**.

  scenario_title: "From Bare Metal to zero_manual_provisioning — Sovereign-Compliant Infrastructure"

  high_level_goal: >
    Design and narrate a realistic, stepwise enablement journey for a
    cross-functional team deploying this micro-DC blueprint for the very
    first time, including: decision records, Git repo structures, CI/CD
    pipelines, IaC examples, runbooks, failure drills, and verification
    gates — all driven from Git, with **no manual provisioning allowed in
    steady state**.

  constraints_and_principles:
    - "No snowflake clusters: all environments must be reproducible from Git."
    - "No long-lived manual changes on devices or clusters; all changes via pipelines."
    - "All infra must be sovereign-by-design and GDPR/data-sovereignty aligned."
    - "All automation, policies and SLOs must be documented and versioned."
    - "Training scenario must be realistic: include trade-offs, risks, and mitigations."
    - "Highlight how to bootstrap the very first control plane without breaking 'no manual changes' intent (e.g. carefully constrained one-time bootstrap with immediate codification)."

  scenario_deliverables_for_model:
    - id: "D1"
      name: "Narrative Training Walkthrough"
      description: >
        A structured narrative (like a guided lab + playbook) that walks a
        team from powered-off hardware to a running, GitOps-managed platform
        in **7-10 stages**, mapping to the deployment_runbook phases. Each
        stage should include learning objectives, inputs, concrete actions
        (as Git commits / pipeline runs), and observable outcomes.
    - id: "D2"
      name: "Git & Repo Training View"
      description: >
        A concrete proposal of Git repo layout, example file trees, and key
        YAML/TF/Ansible snippets that trainees would create/modify during
        the scenario, referencing the git_structure_and_pipelines template.
    - id: "D3"
      name: "Pipeline & Policy Training View"
      description: >
        A description of CI/CD stages, sample policy-as-code checks
        (residency, RBAC, naming), and how a trainee would see and fix
        failed gates on the way to zero_manual_provisioning.
    - id: "D4"
      name: "Sovereignty & Compliance Labs"
      description: >
        2-3 hands-on micro-labs embedded in the scenario focusing on data
        residency, classification, and admin-access controls (e.g. fixing a
        non-compliant backup policy, tightening access to critical sovereign
        namespaces).
    - id: "D5"
      name: "Observability & SLO Labs"
      description: >
        1-2 exercises where trainees define SLOs (e.g. control-plane
        availability, GPU job wait time), wire telemetry into dashboards,
        and respond to a simulated incident or drift event.
    - id: "D6"
      name: "Zero-Manual-Provisioning Definition of Done"
      description: >
        A clear checklist and verification flow that proves the system is
        now at zero_manual_provisioning: what is automated, what is still
        manual, and what the next improvement steps are.

  scenario_structure_expected:
    introduction:
      required_elements:
        - "Short story of the first site going live (choose one: EU-PAR-FR01 or EU-FRA-DE01)."
        - "Constraints: regulatory regime, scale assumptions, target use cases."
        - "Key learning outcomes for the training cohort (3-7 bullets)."
    stages:
      mapping_to_runbook_phases:
        - from_phase: 0
          to_phase: 7
          description: >
            For each phase, define:
            - Name and purpose in training context.
            - Who is 'at the table' (which expert seats).
            - Concrete artefacts created or modified in Git.
            - Pipelines triggered and expected checks.
            - How success/failure is observed.
      extra_requirements:
        - "Each stage must mention at least one repository and one pipeline stage involved."
        - "At least one stage must explore rollback / failed deployment handling."
        - "Include at least one sovereignty-related failure (e.g. illegal backup target) and show how policy catches it."

  style_and_output_guidance:
    tone: "Practical, senior-architect level, but accessible to mid-level engineers."
    format: >
      Use headings and subsections. When describing files or paths, use
      short YAML/TF/Ansible snippets or tree listings. Avoid excessive
      prose; focus on actionable, training-oriented detail.
    do_not:
      - "Do not hand-wave the bootstrap problem; explain how you get from zero to first controller."
      - "Do not assume hyperscaler services unless explicitly justified against sovereignty constraints."
      - "Do not skip sustainability; show at least one KPI wiring into observability."

  scoring_rubric_for_scenario_quality:
    - "Covers all phases from bare metal discovery to GitOps-managed workloads."
    - "Maintains strict alignment to zero_manual_provisioning principle."
    - "Demonstrates realistic use of the Git repo and pipeline structures provided."
    - "Bakes in sovereignty, GDPR, and sustainability rather than treating them as afterthoughts."
    - "Provides at least 3 concrete examples of policies preventing bad changes."
    - "Provides at least 2 concrete examples of SLOs and corresponding telemetry signals."
    - "Addresses limitations and risks (LR1-LR4) with explicit training hooks."

reference_blueprint_template:
  description: >
    The following sections define the **target global deployment blueprint
    template** for a Sovereign Modular Micro-DC. The training scenario should
    assume this as the north star and show how a team, starting from bare metal,
    gradually converges on this architecture using infra-as-code, GitOps and
    policy-as-code.

  blueprint:
    meta:
      format: toon
      version: "1.0"
      kind: "deployment_blueprint_template"
      name: "Sovereign Modular Micro-DC — Global Template"
      generated_by: "AI Council OS — 14-seat round table"
      lastUpdated: "2026-DEC-05"

    context:
      objective: >
        Deploy a repeatable, sovereign, eco-efficient micro-data center “module”
        that can be cloned to multiple regions and countries. All infra must be
        reproducible from Git, fully automated (zero manual provisioning), and
        aligned with GDPR/data-sovereignty (where applicable) and local
        sustainability/facility requirements.
      primary_regime:
        jurisdiction: "<REGULATORY_REGION>   # e.g. EU/EEA, Member State: FR"
        privacy: "<PRIMARY_PRIVACY_LAW>      # e.g. GDPR + local data protection law"
        dpia_required_for:
          - "Healthcare data"
          - "Large-scale processing of special categories of personal data"
          - "AI/ML profiling of individuals at scale"
        facility_standards:
          - "EN 50600-oriented design"
          - "<COUNTRY_SPECIFIC_ELECTRICAL_CODE>"
        sustainability_frameworks:
          - "EU Code of Conduct for Data Centres (or local equivalent)"
          - "Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) thresholds where applicable"
      target_use_cases:
        - "AI/ML training and inference with GPUs"
        - "SaaS / line-of-business apps"
        - "Edge compute for public sector / industry"
      design_principles:
        - "Sovereign-by-design: clear mapping of data to jurisdiction and operators"
        - "Modular: small, repeatable 'bricks' instead of bespoke facilities"
        - "Infra-as-code and policy-as-code; no snowflake clusters"
        - "Observability, SLOs, error budgets from day one"
        - "Sustainability KPIs (PUE/WUE/renewables/reuse) are first-class"

    assumptions:
      module_scale:
        it_load_kw: 80          # adjust per deployment
        racks_total: 8
        racks_gpu: 2
        racks_compute: 4
        racks_storage: 2
        location_examples:
          - "Paris, France (EU-PAR-FR01)"
          - "Paris, France (EU-PAR-FR02)"
          - "Frankfurt, Germany (EU-FRA-DE01)"
          - "Berlin, Germany (EU-BER-DE02)"
          - "Amsterdam, Netherlands (EU-AMS-NL01)"
          - "Rome, Italy (EU-ROM-IT01)"
          - "New York, United States (US-NY-US01)"
      stack_choice:
        bare_metal: "MAAS (or equivalent) for server discovery/commissioning"
        virtualization: "Proxmox VE or similar on most nodes; bare-metal K8s for GPU nodes optional"
        cloud_layer: "Kubernetes as primary control plane; OpenStack optional add-on"
        storage: "Ceph (NVMe + HDD tiers) + object storage; local NVMe cache on GPU nodes"
      automation_stack:
        iac:
          - "Terraform for network/DCIM/inventory where APIs exist"
          - "Ansible for OS/provisioning/bootstrap"
        gitops:
          - "Argo CD or Flux for K8s/OpenStack configuration"
        policy_as_code:
          - "OPA/Kyverno, CI policy checks, security/compliance gates"
      sovereign_controls:
        residency:
          - "All primary storage and processing located within approved jurisdictions"
          - "Backups replicated only within approved sovereign scope"
        data_classification_levels:
          - "PUBLIC"
          - "INTERNAL"
          - "PERSONAL"
          - "SENSITIVE_PERSONAL"
          - "CRITICAL_SOVEREIGN_<COUNTRY_CODE>"
        cross_border_rules:
          - "CRITICAL_SOVEREIGN_<COUNTRY_CODE>: must not leave the country"
          - "SENSITIVE_PERSONAL: must not leave defined region (e.g., EU/EEA)"
          - "PERSONAL: only with approved transfer mechanism and DPO sign-off"

    regions_and_sites:
      overview: >
        Initial seed footprint of seven sovereign micro-DC modules across Europe
        and North America. All sites follow this global template with local
        overlays for power, cooling, connectivity, and regulatory specifics.
      sites:
        - code: "EU-PAR-FR01"
          country: "FR"
          city: "PAR"
          role: "Primary EU hub - Paris #1"
          status: "planned"
        - code: "EU-PAR-FR02"
          country: "FR"
          city: "PAR"
          role: "Secondary EU hub - Paris #2"
          status: "planned"
        - code: "EU-FRA-DE01"
          country: "DE"
          city: "FRA"
          role: "Primary DE hub - Frankfurt"
          status: "planned"
        - code: "EU-BER-DE02"
          country: "DE"
          city: "BER"
          role: "Secondary DE hub - Berlin"
          status: "planned"
        - code: "EU-AMS-NL01"
          country: "NL"
          city: "AMS"
          role: "Primary NL hub - Amsterdam"
          status: "planned"
        - code: "EU-ROM-IT01"
          country: "IT"
          city: "ROM"
          role: "Primary IT hub - Rome"
          status: "planned"
        - code: "US-NY-US01"
          country: "US"
          city: "NY"
          role: "Primary US hub - New York"
          status: "planned"

    naming_conventions:
      overview: >
        Canonical naming scheme for sites and devices, used consistently in all
        blueprints, IaC, monitoring, documentation and inventory systems. Pattern
        is designed to be global (multi-continent), sovereign-aware (country),
        location-specific (city) and module/rack/device specific.
      site_code:
        pattern: "<CONTINENT>-<CITY>-<COUNTRY><NN>"
        description: >
          Human- and machine-readable identifier for a physical site/module.
          Always use fixed-width 2-digit numeric suffix <NN> for uniqueness.
        examples:
          - "EU-PAR-FR01  # Paris, France - primary"
          - "EU-PAR-FR02  # Paris, France - secondary"
          - "EU-FRA-DE01  # Frankfurt, Germany - first DE site"
          - "EU-BER-DE02  # Berlin, Germany - second DE site"
          - "EU-AMS-NL01  # Amsterdam, Netherlands - first NL site"
          - "EU-ROM-IT01  # Rome, Italy - first IT site"
          - "US-NY-US01   # New York, USA - first US site"
        components:
          continent:
            code_values:
              - "EU  # Europe"
              - "US  # United States"
            notes: "Extend with other continents (AP, AF, SA, OC, AS, etc.) as needed."
          country:
            code_values:
              - "FR  # France"
              - "DE  # Germany"
              - "NL  # Netherlands"
              - "IT  # Italy"
              - "US  # United States"
            notes: "Use ISO-like 2-letter codes for countries."
          city:
            code_values:
              - "PAR  # Paris"
              - "MAR  # Marseille"
              - "BOR  # Bordeaux"
              - "NAN  # Nantes"
              - "FRA  # Frankfurt"
              - "BER  # Berlin"
              - "AMS  # Amsterdam"
              - "ROM  # Rome"
              - "NY   # New York"
            notes: >
              City codes are stable mnemonics; define centrally (e.g. in a YAML map)
              and reuse. For new cities, extend the map only via PR review.
          index:
            pattern: "NN  # 01-99"
            notes: >
              Unique per country; 01 usually primary site in that country, 02
              secondary, etc. Example: EU-FRA-DE01 (first DE site, Frankfurt),
              EU-BER-DE02 (second DE site, Berlin).
      rack_code:
        pattern: "<SITE>-RK<rr>"
        description: >
          Identifies a specific rack within a site. Can be extended with room/zone
          information when necessary while preserving RK<rr> as the rack index.
        examples:
          - "EU-PAR-FR01-RK01"
          - "EU-PAR-FR01-RK02"
          - "EU-FRA-DE01-RK01"
          - "EU-BER-DE02-RK01"
          - "EU-AMS-NL01-RK01"
          - "EU-ROM-IT01-RK01"
          - "US-NY-US01-RK01"
        extensions:
          room_or_zone:
            description: >
              If racks span multiple rooms/zones, use a suffix or infix such as
              RK01A, RK02B or Z1-RK01 as standardised in the physical model.
            examples:
              - "EU-PAR-FR01-Z1-RK01"
              - "EU-PAR-FR01-RK01A"
      device_code:
        pattern: "<SITE>-RK<rr>-<DEVICE><dd>"
        description: >
          Identifies a specific device in a rack. DEVICE is a short type code;
          <dd> is a 2-digit index, except for devices that traditionally use
          letter suffixes (e.g., PDUs A/B).
        examples:
          firewalls:
            - "EU-PAR-FR01-RK01-FW01"
            - "EU-PAR-FR02-RK01-FW01"
            - "EU-FRA-DE01-RK01-FW01"
            - "EU-BER-DE02-RK01-FW01"
          management_nodes:
            - "EU-PAR-FR01-RK01-mgmt01   # Local management node (e.g. MAAS rack controller)"
            - "EU-FRA-DE01-RK01-mgmt01"
            - "US-NY-US01-RK01-mgmt01"
          switches:
            - "EU-PAR-FR01-RK01-tor01    # ToR / L3 switch"
            - "EU-PAR-FR01-RK02-tor02"
            - "EU-FRA-DE01-RK01-lf01     # Leaf switch"
            - "EU-FRA-DE01-RK01-sp01     # Spine switch"
            - "EU-BER-DE02-RK01-sp02     # Spine switch"
            - "EU-AMS-NL01-RK01-tor01"
            - "EU-ROM-IT01-RK01-tor01"
            - "US-NY-US01-RK01-tor01"
          servers:
            - "EU-PAR-FR01-RK01-srv01"
            - "EU-PAR-FR02-RK01-srv01"
            - "EU-FRA-DE01-RK01-srv01"
            - "EU-BER-DE02-RK01-srv01"
            - "EU-AMS-NL01-RK01-srv01"
            - "EU-ROM-IT01-RK01-srv01"
            - "US-NY-US01-RK01-srv01"
          storage:
            - "EU-PAR-FR01-RK01-san01    # SAN array"
            - "EU-FRA-DE01-RK01-nas01    # NAS filer"
            - "EU-AMS-NL01-RK01-jbd01    # JBOD / disk shelf"
          monitoring:
            - "EU-PAR-FR01-RK01-mon01"
            - "EU-FRA-DE01-RK01-mon01"
            - "US-NY-US01-RK01-mon01"
          power:
            - "EU-PAR-FR01-RK01-pduA"
            - "EU-PAR-FR01-RK01-pduB"
            - "EU-FRA-DE01-RK01-pduA"
            - "US-NY-US01-RK01-pduA"
        device_type_codes:
          tor:  "Top of Rack switch (often L3 capable)"
          ss:   "Super spine"
          sp:   "Spine"
          blf:  "Border leaf"
          lf:   "Leaf"
          fw:   "Firewall"
          lb:   "Load balancer"
          srv:  "Server (compute/GPU/infra)"
          san:  "SAN storage array"
          nas:  "NAS filer"
          jbd:  "JBOD / disk shelf"
          oob:  "Out-of-band management device"
          mgmt: "Generic management node (e.g., MAAS, jump host)"
          mon:  "Monitoring / logging node"
          pduA: "Rack PDU side A"
          pduB: "Rack PDU side B"
      implementation_notes:
        - "Enforce naming via IaC modules (variables, templates, validation in CI)."
        - "Monitoring, CMDB and inventory tools must use these names as primary identifiers."
        - "No ad-hoc names; new device types must extend the device_type_codes map and be reviewed."
        - "Where external systems impose constraints (e.g. 15-char limits), define deterministic truncation rules."

    architecture:
      layers:
        - name: "Facility & Physical Module (Physical Infrastructure & Facility Engineering Lead)"
          description: >
            Physical micro-DC module: room/container, racks, power, cooling,
            structured cabling, environmental monitoring, aligned with local
            building/electrical codes and EN 50600-style principles.
          design:
            form_factor:
              options:
                - "Prefabricated container (2-4 racks) for remote/edge sites"
                - "Dedicated technical room in existing building for 6-10 racks"
            power:
              utility_feeds: "At least 1 primary + 1 secondary where feasible"
              ups_topology: "Modular online UPS, N+1"
              generator:
                presence: true
                autonomy_hours: 8
              redundancy_level: "N+1 for IT load, 2N for critical infra when justified"
              per_rack_pdu:
                type: "Intelligent, metered, switched"
            cooling:
              primary:
                type: "In-row or rear-door cooling units"
              free_cooling:
                enabled: true
              gpu_rack_density_kw: 20
              cpu_rack_density_kw: 8
            monitoring:
              sensors:
                - "Rack inlet temperature"
                - "Rack exhaust temperature"
                - "Room temperature and humidity"
                - "PDU-level power and voltage"
              telemetry_export:
                protocol: "SNMP/Modbus translated to Prometheus metrics"
        - name: "Network & Connectivity (Network Architect)"
          design:
            topology:
              underlay: "Leaf-spine, 2x spine, dual ToR per rack where cost-effective"
              uplinks_per_rack: 2
              routing: "L3 to the top, BGP between ToR and spines"
            segmentation:
              vrfs:
                - name: "INFRA_MGMT"
                - name: "TENANT"
                - name: "STORAGE"
                - name: "OUT_OF_BAND"
            wan:
              connectivity:
                - "Dual ISPs where feasible"
              sovereignty:
                - "All VPN termination in approved jurisdictions; keys managed by sovereign entities"
        - name: "Compute, Storage & Virtualization (Virtualization Architect, Capacity & Performance Engineer)"
          design:
            node_types:
              - name: "compute-standard"
                cpu: "2 x 32-core"
                ram_gb: 512
              - name: "compute-gpu"
                cpu: "2 x 32-core, NUMA-aligned"
                gpus: 4
                ram_gb: 768
              - name: "storage-ceph"
                cpu: "1 x 24-core"
                ram_gb: 256
            hypervisor:
              platform: "Proxmox VE or similar"
            storage:
              ceph:
                pools:
                  - name: "k8s-block"
                  - name: "gpu-block"
                  - name: "object-archive"
        - name: "Platform & Workloads (Principal SRE, Automation & IaC Lead, OpenStack Architect)"
          design:
            provisioning_flow:
              - "Bare metal discovery/commissioning"
              - "Hypervisor or K8s node OS install via Ansible"
              - "GitOps applies cluster and app layer"
            clusters:
              k8s:
                ha_control_plane: 3
              openstack_optional:
                enabled: false
            multi_tenancy:
              k8s:
                namespaces:
                  - "<COUNTRY_CODE>-public"
                  - "<COUNTRY_CODE>-internal"
                  - "<COUNTRY_CODE>-personal"
                  - "<COUNTRY_CODE>-sensitive"
                  - "<COUNTRY_CODE>-critical-sovereign"
        - name: "Compliance, Sovereignty & Sustainability (Sovereign Compliance & Sustainability Lead, Physical Infrastructure Lead, Security Architect)"
          design:
            data_residency:
              rules:
                - "Critical sovereign namespaces use storage classes bound to local pools only."
                - "Backups for critical sovereign data stay within country; sensitive personal data only in defined region."
            admin_access:
              controls:
                - "MFA and just-in-time elevation with full logging"
                - "No direct non-approved-jurisdiction operator accounts"
            sustainability_kpis:
              targets:
                pue_max: 1.4
                renewable_share_min_percent: 70
                energy_reuse_target: "Heat reuse where feasible"
              measurement:
                - "Facility meters integrated into telemetry"
                - "Sustainability dashboards and reports"

    git_structure_and_pipelines:
      repos:
        - name: "infra-foundation"
          contents:
            - "facility/site_manifests/"
            - "facility/rack_layouts/"
            - "facility/power_and_cooling/"
            - "network/terraform/"
            - "hypervisor/ansible/"
            - "baremetal/profiles/"
        - name: "platform-clusters"
          contents:
            - "k8s/clusters/<site_codes>/"
            - "addons/monitoring-logging-security/"
        - name: "policies-and-compliance"
          contents:
            - "data-classification.yaml"
            - "opa-policies/"
            - "sustainability-kpis.yaml"
            - "rbac-and-iam.yaml"
      ci_cd:
        pipeline_stages:
          - name: "lint_and_unit"
          - name: "policy_gates"
          - name: "integration_test"
          - name: "promotion_to_template"
          - name: "site_rollout"

    deployment_runbook:
      phases:
        - phase: 0
          name: "Policy & Site Definition"
          owners:
            - "Sovereign Compliance & Sustainability Lead"
            - "Physical Infrastructure & Facility Engineering Lead"
        - phase: 1
          name: "Facility Build-Out"
        - phase: 2
          name: "Network & Out-of-Band Bring-Up"
        - phase: 3
          name: "Bare-Metal & Hypervisor Provisioning"
        - phase: 4
          name: "Platform Bootstrap"
        - phase: 5
          name: "Compliance & Telemetry Validation"
        - phase: 6
          name: "Workload Onboarding"
        - phase: 7
          name: "Scale-Out & Federation"

    verification_and_validation:
      automated_checks:
        - "IaC unit/integration tests"
        - "Policy-as-code checks for residency and security"
        - "Post-deploy conformance tests for network, storage, and platform"
      manual_reviews:
        - "DPO/legal review for data protection alignment"
        - "Facility audit for physical security and safety"
        - "Sustainability review vs targets"
      continuous_improvement:
        - "Chaos drills to validate reliability"
        - "Post-incident reviews feeding into blueprint updates"
        - "Versioned evolution with clear change logs"

    limitations_risks_open_questions:
      key_limitations_and_risks:
        - id: "LR1"
          title: "Skill gap in policy and CI/CD tooling"
          description: >
            Building OPA policies, complex CI/CD pipelines and network verification
            (e.g. Batfish labs) requires specialized skills that may not exist in
            the current team; you will likely need vendor or consulting assistance
            in the early phases.
          owner_role: "CI/CD & GitOps Governance Lead"
          supporting_roles:
            - "Automation & IaC Lead (Ansible/Terraform/Python SDK)"
            - "Security Architect (Zero Trust, Compliance)"
          mitigation_ideas:
            - "Plan and budget for initial external enablement (consultants, vendor PS, training)."
            - "Create internal champions and pair them with experts during first implementations."
            - "Codify patterns into reusable modules and templates to reduce ongoing complexity."
        - id: "LR2"
          title: "Tooling complexity and operational reliability"
          description: >
            The reference pipeline uses many components (IaC, GitOps, OPA, observability,
            network verification, etc.). Excessive complexity, if not well-documented and
            properly observed, can itself become a source of incidents and opaque failures.
          owner_role: "Principal SRE/DevOps Architect"
          supporting_roles:
            - "SRE Reliability Engineering Lead"
            - "Platform Lifecycle & Operations Lead"
          mitigation_ideas:
            - "Standardize on a minimal-but-sufficient toolset and deprecate unused options."
            - "Introduce strict documentation requirements and runbooks for every critical tool."
            - "Continuously measure pipeline reliability as an SLO and reduce moving parts where needed."
        - id: "LR3"
          title: "Cultural shift to Git-first and pipeline-first operations"
          description: >
            The model depends on all engineers adopting Git-first, pipeline-first behavior.
            Any persistent CLI-driven culture (manual changes on devices or clusters) undermines
            reproducibility, auditability, and reliability of the entire system.
          owner_role: "CI/CD & GitOps Governance Lead"
          supporting_roles:
            - "Principal SRE/DevOps Architect"
            - "Platform Lifecycle & Operations Lead"
          mitigation_ideas:
            - "Define and enforce 'no manual changes' policies with exceptions tightly controlled."
            - "Provide onboarding, training and internal advocacy for GitOps practices."
            - "Instrument drift detection and alert on out-of-band changes to drive behavioral change."
        - id: "LR4"
          title: "AI fabric modeling for InfiniBand/RoCE"
          description: >
            Simulating and testing AI/ML fabric behavior (InfiniBand/RoCE, congestion control,
            ECN, QoS) in a lab may be limited compared to real production hardware. This can
            leave blind spots in performance and failure-mode validation.
          owner_role: "Capacity & Performance Engineer"
          supporting_roles:
            - "Network Architect (Spine/Leaf/BGP/EVPN)"
            - "Virtualization Architect (Proxmox/ESXi/KVM)"
          mitigation_ideas:
            - "Use representative scaled-down fabric topologies with real NICs/switches for key tests."
            - "Baseline and continuously compare production telemetry against lab expectations."
            - "Plan phased rollouts and canary deployments for new fabric features or firmware."
      open_questions:
        - id: "OQ1"
          prompt: >
            What is the minimum viable toolset (IaC, GitOps, policy, observability, network
            verification) that balances sovereignty, safety and sustainability without
            overwhelming smaller operations teams?
          owner_role: "Principal SRE/DevOps Architect"
        - id: "OQ2"
          prompt: >
            How should AI/ML fabric performance and fairness (e.g. job scheduling, multi-tenant
            GPU cluster sharing) be expressed as SLOs that are understandable by both
            infrastructure teams and workload owners?
          owner_role: "SRE Reliability Engineering Lead"
        - id: "OQ3"
          prompt: >
            For smaller sovereign micro-DCs, when does it make sense to offload certain
            non-personal workloads to hyperscale cloud vs. running them locally, in terms
            of energy efficiency, cost, and regulatory simplicity?
          owner_role: "Sovereign Compliance & Sustainability Lead (GDPR/EU Green)"

    council_alignment:
      outcome_requirements_satisfied:
        - "zero_manual_provisioning"
        - "zero_snowflake_clusters"
        - "fully_reproducible_infra_from_git"
        - "multi_dc_consistency"
        - "ha_control_planes"
        - "predictable_gpu_performance"
        - "automated_lifecycle_management"
        - "telemetry_and_self_healing"
        - "clear_slo_sli_error_budgets"
        - "security_and_compliance_built_in"
        - "gdpr_and_data_sovereignty_alignment"
        - "eco_efficiency_and_sustainability_kpis"
        - "architecture_must_be_deployable"
        - "all_answers_validated_by_cross_seat_consensus"
```