Phase 1 Risk Mitigation Playbook
Phase 1 Risk Mitigation Playbook
Project: CODITECT Core - Phase 1 Production Readiness Purpose: Proactive risk management and rapid response guide Duration: 2 weeks (Nov 25 - Dec 6, 2025) Team: 2 Developers + 1 DevOps
Table of Contents
- Risk Overview
- High-Priority Risks
- Scenario Playbooks
- Escalation Procedures
- Daily Risk Monitoring
- Contingency Plans
- Communication Templates
Risk Overview
Risk Categories
| Category | Probability | Impact | Priority | Mitigation Focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical | Medium | High | P0 | Daily monitoring, early escalation |
| Resource | Low | High | P0 | Cross-training, backup resources |
| Schedule | Medium | Medium | P1 | Buffer time, parallel work |
| Scope | High | Low | P2 | Strict scope control |
| Quality | Low | Medium | P1 | Automated testing, peer review |
Risk Matrix
IMPACT →
│ Low │ Medium │ High
────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────
Low │ Accept │ Monitor │ Mitigate
────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────
Med │ Monitor│ Mitigate│ Escalate
────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────
High│ Mitigate│Escalate│ Escalate
High-Priority Risks
Risk #1: Test Coverage Falls Short of 60% Target
Probability: Medium (40%) Impact: High (blocks production) Priority: P0 - Critical
Indicators
- Day 7 progress check: coverage <45%
- Complex modules taking longer than estimated
- Developer 1 reports test writing challenges
Mitigation Strategy
Preventive (Before it happens)
-
Day 3 checkpoint: Measure coverage on completed modules
- If task.py <90%: red flag, investigate immediately
- If state_manager.py <80%: adjust estimates for remaining modules
-
Prioritize high-value modules:
- Core: task.py, orchestrator.py, state_manager.py, executor.py (must be 70%+)
- Scripts: Can accept 40-50% if core is solid
-
Use test generation tools:
- GitHub Copilot for test scaffolding
- pytest-randomly for edge case discovery
Reactive (If it happens)
Day 9 - Coverage at 52%
IMMEDIATE ACTIONS (Same Day):
1. ⏰ ESCALATE to Project Manager
2. 📊 Generate coverage report by module
3. 🎯 Identify 5 highest-value untested modules
4. 👥 Reassign Developer 2 to help (from documentation)
5. ⏱️ Add 2 buffer days (extend to Day 12 if needed)
NEXT DAY:
6. 🔨 Focus sprint: Both developers write tests for top 5 modules
7. 📈 Target: +10% coverage per day for 3 days
8. ✅ VALIDATE: Recheck coverage Day 12
ACCEPTABLE OUTCOMES:
- Core modules ≥70% (negotiable: overall 55% if core is solid)
- Document gap modules for Phase 2
- Partial GO with mitigation plan
Escalation Path
- Day 7: PM aware, monitoring daily
- Day 9: Escalate to Engineering Lead, request extension
- Day 11: Escalate to CTO, GO/NO-GO decision with mitigation
Risk #2: Monitoring Stack Integration Fails
Probability: Low (20%) Impact: High (blocks production) Priority: P0 - Critical
Indicators
- Prometheus not collecting metrics
- Grafana dashboards show no data
- Jaeger traces not appearing
Mitigation Strategy
Preventive
-
Use proven libraries:
prometheus_client(official Python library)opentelemetry-sdk(CNCF standard)
-
Test locally first:
- Day 2: Verify Prometheus metrics locally
- Day 4: Verify Grafana dashboards locally
- Day 7: Verify Jaeger traces locally
-
Incremental deployment:
- Deploy Prometheus first, validate
- Then Grafana, validate dashboards
- Then Jaeger, validate traces
- Don't deploy all at once
Reactive
Day 8 - Monitoring Not Working
IMMEDIATE ACTIONS (Within 2 Hours):
1. 🔍 DIAGNOSE: Which component is failing?
- Prometheus: Check /metrics endpoint locally
- Grafana: Check data source connection
- Jaeger: Check collector logs
2. 🆘 ESCALATE to DevOps Lead (external if needed)
- Share error logs
- Request pair programming session
3. 🔄 FALLBACK: Use simpler alternatives
- Prometheus: Use local file exporter instead of remote
- Grafana: Use pre-built dashboards instead of custom
- Jaeger: Use all-in-one Docker instead of distributed
SAME DAY:
4. 🛠️ IMPLEMENT FALLBACK while debugging main issue
5. ✅ VALIDATE: At least basic metrics flowing
NEXT DAY:
6. 🎯 FOCUS: Fix primary issue with DevOps Lead support
7. 📊 ACCEPTABLE: Basic monitoring operational (can enhance post-launch)
ESCALATION:
- Day 8 AM: DevOps Lead aware
- Day 8 PM: CTO aware if still blocked
- Day 9: GO/NO-GO discussion with basic monitoring as acceptable
Risk #3: Developer Availability Issues
Probability: Low (15%) Impact: High (blocks progress) Priority: P0 - Critical
Indicators
- Developer calls in sick
- Family emergency
- Unexpected conflict
Mitigation Strategy
Preventive
-
Cross-training:
- Week 1 Day 3: Developers pair program 2 hours
- Share knowledge on critical modules
-
Documentation:
- Each developer documents their work daily
- GitHub issues updated with progress notes
-
Modular work:
- Tasks designed to be independently completable
- No critical dependencies on single person
Reactive
Developer 1 Unavailable (Test Coverage Owner)
IMMEDIATE ACTIONS (Within 1 Hour):
1. 📞 ASSESS: How long unavailable? (1 day vs 1 week)
IF 1-2 DAYS:
2. 🔄 REASSIGN: Developer 2 takes over critical tests
3. ⏸️ PAUSE: Non-critical tests wait
4. 🎯 FOCUS: Core modules only (task.py, orchestrator.py)
5. ⏱️ ACCEPT: 1-2 day delay (extend to Day 11-12)
IF 3+ DAYS:
2. 🆘 ESCALATE: Request backup developer
3. 💰 BUDGET: Allocate $4,800 for replacement (5 days × $960)
4. 🚀 ONBOARD: Use GitHub issues for rapid context loading
5. 🎯 FOCUS: Developer 2 + backup complete testing
ESCALATION:
- Immediate: PM aware
- Within 2 hours: Engineering Lead requested backup
- Same day: Backup developer assigned and onboarded
Developer 2 Unavailable (Error Handling + Docs Owner)
IMMEDIATE ACTIONS:
1. 🔄 REASSIGN: Developer 1 takes error handling (simpler than testing)
2. 🔄 DevOps helps with documentation (part-time available)
3. ⏸️ DEFER: Some documentation to post-launch (Phase 1.5)
ACCEPTABLE DEGRADATION:
- Error handling: 80% instead of 100% (defer 4 scripts to Phase 1.5)
- Documentation: READMEs done, CLAUDE.md deferred
- Still achieves GO with minor gaps documented
Risk #4: Scope Creep (Feature Requests During Sprint)
Probability: High (60%) Impact: Low-Medium (delays, quality issues) Priority: P1 - High
Indicators
- Stakeholder requests new features
- Team discovers "nice to have" improvements
- Bugs found that aren't blockers
Mitigation Strategy
Preventive
- Clear scope document: PHASE-1-IMPLEMENTATION-PLAN.md defines exactly what's in/out
- Change control: All changes require PM approval
- Parking lot: Track all "good ideas" for Phase 2
Reactive
Stakeholder Requests New Feature Mid-Sprint
RESPONSE TEMPLATE:
"Thank you for the suggestion! We've documented this as a valuable
enhancement for Phase 2.
Phase 1 scope is locked (32 tasks, 4 quality gates) to ensure
production launch on Dec 10. Adding features now would:
- Risk quality gates failing
- Delay production launch
- Potentially block revenue generation
Can we revisit this request on Dec 6 during Phase 2 planning?"
PROCESS:
1. 📝 DOCUMENT: Add to Phase 2 backlog (PHASE-2-PREVIEW.md)
2. ✅ ACKNOWLEDGE: Thank stakeholder for input
3. 🚫 DECLINE: Politely but firmly decline for Phase 1
4. 🔄 DEFER: Commit to Phase 2 consideration
5. 📊 REPORT: Include in weekly summary as "deferred feature"
ESCALATION:
- If stakeholder insists: Escalate to Product Owner
- Product Owner decides: Extend timeline or defer feature
- Document decision in project notes
Risk #5: Integration Testing Reveals Critical Bugs
Probability: Medium (35%) Impact: Medium (delays, rework) Priority: P1 - High
Indicators
- Day 8: Integration tests failing
- Components don't work together as expected
- Edge cases uncovered
Mitigation Strategy
Preventive
-
Daily integration testing: Don't wait until Day 8
- Day 3: Test task.py + orchestrator.py integration
- Day 5: Test orchestrator.py + executor.py integration
- Day 7: Test full workflow
-
Contract testing: Define interfaces early
- AgentTask API stable by Day 2
- Executor API stable by Day 4
Reactive
Day 8 - Integration Tests 40% Passing
IMMEDIATE ACTIONS (Same Day):
1. 🔍 TRIAGE: Categorize failures
- P0 Critical: Blocks basic functionality (fix immediately)
- P1 High: Impacts edge cases (fix if time allows)
- P2 Low: Minor issues (defer to Phase 1.5)
2. 🎯 FOCUS: Fix P0 issues only
- Allocate both developers to P0 fixes
- DevOps pauses new work to help
3. ⏱️ TIME-BOX: 2 days maximum for P0 fixes
- Day 8-9: Fix P0 bugs
- Day 10: Final validation
ACCEPTABLE OUTCOMES:
- P0 bugs: 100% fixed (critical path works)
- P1 bugs: 50% fixed (document rest for Phase 1.5)
- P2 bugs: 0% fixed (defer all to Phase 1.5)
ESCALATION:
- Day 8 AM: PM aware of integration issues
- Day 8 PM: Daily standup focused on P0 triage
- Day 9: If >10 P0 bugs, extend timeline 2 days
Scenario Playbooks
Scenario A: "We're Behind Schedule"
Trigger: Day 5 mid-week checkpoint shows <40% completion
Response Protocol
STEP 1: ASSESS CURRENT STATE (30 minutes)
- [ ] Run velocity calculation: (completed issues / 5 days) × 10 days
- [ ] Identify bottlenecks: Which workstream is behind?
- [ ] Check blockers: Any issues in "Blocked" column?
STEP 2: ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (30 minutes)
- [ ] Tasks taking longer than estimated?
- [ ] Unexpected complexity?
- [ ] External dependencies blocking?
- [ ] Team member availability reduced?
STEP 3: MITIGATION OPTIONS (Choose one)
OPTION A: EXTEND TIMELINE
- Add 2-3 buffer days (launch Dec 12-13 instead of Dec 10)
- Pros: Maintains quality, reduces stress
- Cons: Delays revenue, stakeholder expectations
OPTION B: REDUCE SCOPE
- Identify P2 tasks (nice-to-have)
- Defer to Phase 1.5 (Dec 11-13 polish sprint)
- Example: Defer 2 documentation tasks, 1 monitoring dashboard
- Pros: Maintains timeline, achieves GO with minor gaps
- Cons: Slightly reduced quality, post-launch work
OPTION C: ADD RESOURCES
- Bring in backup developer (cost: $4,800 for 5 days)
- Allocate to bottleneck workstream
- Pros: Maintains timeline and scope
- Cons: Additional cost, onboarding overhead
STEP 4: DECISION & EXECUTION
- [ ] PM presents options to stakeholders
- [ ] Decision made within 4 hours
- [ ] Communicate to team immediately
- [ ] Update GitHub Projects board
- [ ] Adjust estimates and plan
STEP 5: MONITOR DAILY
- [ ] Daily velocity tracking
- [ ] Course-correct if needed
Scenario B: "Quality Gate Likely to Fail"
Trigger: Day 7-8 prediction shows quality gate at risk
Response Protocol
STEP 1: IDENTIFY FAILING GATE (1 hour)
Gate 1: Test Coverage (target: 60%)
Gate 2: Error Handling (target: 100%)
Gate 3: Monitoring (target: operational)
Gate 4: Documentation (target: 0 broken links)
STEP 2: QUANTIFY GAP
Example: Test coverage at 48% (need 60%)
- Gap: 12 percentage points
- Effort: ~16 hours of additional testing
- Time available: 2-3 days
STEP 3: MITIGATION STRATEGY
FOR TEST COVERAGE GAP:
- [ ] Lower threshold to 55% (acceptable if core modules >70%)
- [ ] Focus on high-value modules only
- [ ] Document untested modules for Phase 1.5
FOR ERROR HANDLING GAP:
- [ ] Prioritize critical scripts (10 most-used)
- [ ] Defer remaining 11 scripts to Phase 1.5
- [ ] 48% coverage acceptable if no production crashes
FOR MONITORING GAP:
- [ ] Deploy basic monitoring (Prometheus only)
- [ ] Defer Grafana dashboards to Phase 1.5
- [ ] Defer Jaeger tracing to Phase 1.5
FOR DOCUMENTATION GAP:
- [ ] Fix critical broken links only (agent links)
- [ ] Defer some README files to Phase 1.5
- [ ] Acceptable: 5 broken links if non-critical
STEP 4: STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATION
- [ ] Create gap analysis document
- [ ] Present mitigation plan
- [ ] Request GO with conditions
- [ ] Commit to Phase 1.5 completion (3-5 days post-launch)
STEP 5: IMPLEMENT MITIGATION
- [ ] Focus team on revised targets
- [ ] Track progress daily
- [ ] Validate by Day 10
Scenario C: "Critical Bug Found in Production"
Trigger: Production launch (Dec 10), critical bug discovered
Response Protocol
IMMEDIATE ACTIONS (Within 1 Hour):
1. 🚨 SEVERITY ASSESSMENT
- SEV1: Production down, no workaround
- SEV2: Major functionality broken, workaround exists
- SEV3: Minor issue, annoying but not blocking
2. 🔥 IF SEV1 (PRODUCTION DOWN):
- [ ] ROLLBACK immediately to previous version
- [ ] Notify all users via email/Slack
- [ ] Assemble war room (all 3 team members)
- [ ] Fix within 4 hours or stay rolled back
3. ⚠️ IF SEV2 (MAJOR ISSUE):
- [ ] Document workaround for users
- [ ] Create emergency patch
- [ ] Test patch in staging
- [ ] Deploy within 24 hours
4. 📝 IF SEV3 (MINOR ISSUE):
- [ ] Create issue for Phase 1.5
- [ ] Document known issue in release notes
- [ ] Fix in next patch release
POST-INCIDENT (Within 24 Hours):
- [ ] Write incident report
- [ ] Root cause analysis
- [ ] Add regression test
- [ ] Update monitoring/alerts to catch similar issues
- [ ] Retrospective with team
Escalation Procedures
Escalation Levels
Level 1: Team (Self-Resolve)
- Who: Developer 1, Developer 2, DevOps
- When: Normal blockers, technical questions
- Response Time: Within 4 hours
- Examples: Test framework question, git conflict, integration issue
Level 2: Project Manager
- Who: PM escalates to Engineering Lead
- When: Schedule risk, resource issue, scope question
- Response Time: Within 2 hours during business hours
- Examples: Behind schedule, developer unavailable, scope creep
Level 3: Engineering Lead
- Who: Engineering Lead escalates to CTO
- When: Quality gate failure risk, major technical blocker
- Response Time: Within 4 hours
- Examples: Coverage target unreachable, monitoring stack broken
Level 4: CTO / Executive
- Who: CTO makes final decision
- When: GO/NO-GO decision, budget increase, timeline extension
- Response Time: Within 24 hours
- Examples: Extend timeline 1 week, add $10K budget, defer features
Escalation Triggers
Automatic Escalation (No Discussion Needed)
- Budget overrun >10% ($2,160)
- Timeline slip >2 days
- Quality gate failure on Day 10
- Team member unavailable >3 days
- Critical production bug (SEV1)
Discretionary Escalation (PM Judgment)
- Complexity higher than estimated
- Stakeholder requesting scope change
- Integration issues requiring rework
- External dependency blocking progress
Daily Risk Monitoring
Daily Standup Risk Assessment (5 minutes)
Questions to ask
-
Velocity Check:
- "Are we on track to complete today's planned issues?"
- Expected: 3-4 issues/day
- Red flag: <2 issues completed yesterday
-
Blocker Check:
- "Any blockers preventing progress?"
- Expected: 0-1 blockers
- Red flag: 2+ blockers or blocker >24 hours old
-
Quality Check:
- "Are tests passing? Code reviews current?"
- Expected: All tests green, reviews <4 hours old
- Red flag: Failing tests, reviews backlogged
-
Scope Check:
- "Any new scope requests or distractions?"
- Expected: 0 new requests
- Red flag: Stakeholder adding requirements
-
Team Check:
- "Everyone healthy and available?"
- Expected: All team members present
- Red flag: Team member sick or distracted
Weekly Risk Dashboard
Updated Every Friday
| Metric | Week 1 Target | Week 1 Actual | Week 2 Target | Week 2 Actual | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Issues Completed | 16/32 (50%) | TBD | 32/32 (100%) | TBD | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| Test Coverage | 30% | TBD | 60%+ | TBD | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| Error Handling | 50% | TBD | 100% | TBD | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| Monitoring | Setup | TBD | Operational | TBD | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| Documentation | 50% | TBD | 100% | TBD | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| Blockers | 0-1 | TBD | 0 | TBD | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| Budget | $10,800 | TBD | $21,600 | TBD | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
Status Legend
- 🟢 Green: On track (≥90% of target)
- 🟡 Yellow: At risk (70-89% of target)
- 🔴 Red: Behind (< 70% of target)
Contingency Plans
Contingency A: Emergency Timeline Extension
Trigger: Day 8 shows completion <60%
Plan
-
Extend by 2 days: Launch Dec 12 instead of Dec 10
-
Cost: $0 (same team, just 2 more days)
-
Stakeholder Communication:
"Phase 1 quality gates require 2 additional days to ensure
production readiness. New launch date: Dec 12.
This allows us to achieve all 4 quality gates without
compromising on quality or security.
Phase 2 timeline unaffected (still starts Dec 12)."
---
### Contingency B: Phase 1.5 (Polish Sprint)
**Trigger:** Launch on Dec 10 with minor gaps
#### Plan
1. **Duration:** 3-5 days (Dec 11-15)
2. **Team:** Developer 2 + DevOps (part-time)
3. **Cost:** $4,800 (5 days × $960/day for Developer 2)
4. **Scope:**
- Fill test coverage gaps (55% → 65%)
- Complete remaining error handling (80% → 100%)
- Add missing documentation (READMEs, Claude.md)
- Fix non-critical bugs
**Benefit:** Allows production launch on Dec 10 while polishing in parallel
---
### Contingency C: Partial GO with Mitigation
**Trigger:** One quality gate fails, others pass
#### Plan
#### Example: Test coverage 55% instead of 60%
#### GO Decision Criteria
- Core modules >70% coverage (critical path tested)
- Integration tests pass (end-to-end works)
- No SEV1 or SEV2 bugs in production
- Monitoring operational (can detect issues)
#### Mitigation
- Document untested modules
- Commit to Phase 1.5 to fill gaps
- Extra monitoring during first week
- Rollback plan ready
#### Stakeholder Communication
```yaml
"Test coverage achieved 55% (target was 60%), but we recommend
GO for production because:
1. Core modules exceed 70% (critical path well-tested)
2. Integration tests 100% passing
3. Zero critical bugs found
4. Monitoring operational for early detection
5. Rollback plan ready
We will complete remaining coverage in Phase 1.5 (Dec 11-13)
running in parallel with production monitoring."
Communication Templates
Template A: Risk Escalation Email
Subject: [RISK ALERT] Phase 1 - [Risk Description]
To: Engineering Lead, CTO (depending on escalation level)
CC: Project Manager, Team
Body
RISK ALERT: [Risk Name]
SEVERITY: [P0-Critical / P1-High / P2-Medium]
CURRENT SITUATION:
[2-3 sentences describing the risk and current state]
IMPACT IF NOT ADDRESSED:
- Timeline: [X days delay or no impact]
- Budget: [$ increase or no impact]
- Quality: [Which quality gate at risk]
- Scope: [Features at risk]
MITIGATION OPTIONS:
1. [Option A] - Recommended
- Action: [What to do]
- Timeline: [How long]
- Cost: [$X]
- Pros: [Benefits]
- Cons: [Drawbacks]
2. [Option B] - Alternative
- [Same structure]
DECISION NEEDED:
[What decision is required and by when]
RECOMMENDATION:
[Clear recommendation with rationale]
PREPARED BY: [Your name]
DATE: [Date]
RESPONSE NEEDED BY: [Date/Time]
Template B: Stakeholder Status Update (Weekly)
Subject: Phase 1 Week [1/2] Status - [On Track / At Risk / Behind]
To: Stakeholders, Product Owner
CC: Team
Body
PHASE 1 - WEEK [1/2] STATUS REPORT
OVERALL STATUS: [🟢 On Track / 🟡 At Risk / 🔴 Behind]
PROGRESS THIS WEEK:
✅ Completed: [X] / [Y] issues ([Z]%)
- Workstream 1 (Test Coverage): [X]/[Y] complete
- Workstream 2 (Error Handling): [X]/[Y] complete
- Workstream 3 (Documentation): [X]/[Y] complete
- Workstream 4 (Monitoring): [X]/[Y] complete
QUALITY GATES STATUS:
- Test Coverage: [X]% (target: 60%) - [🟢/🟡/🔴]
- Error Handling: [X]% (target: 100%) - [🟢/🟡/🔴]
- Monitoring: [Status] (target: Operational) - [🟢/🟡/🔴]
- Documentation: [X broken links] (target: 0) - [🟢/🟡/🔴]
HIGHLIGHTS:
- [Key achievement this week]
- [Milestone reached]
RISKS & MITIGATION:
- [Risk if any]: [Mitigation plan]
NEXT WEEK PLAN:
- [Key objectives for next week]
ON TRACK FOR: [Launch date] GO/NO-GO Decision
ATTACHMENTS:
- Weekly velocity chart
- Risk dashboard
QUESTIONS? Contact [PM name]
Template C: GO/NO-GO Decision Document
Subject: Phase 1 GO/NO-GO Decision - Dec 6, 2025
To: Executive Team, Stakeholders
Body
PHASE 1 PRODUCTION READINESS - GO/NO-GO DECISION
DATE: December 6, 2025
DECISION REQUIRED: GO or NO-GO for Dec 10 production launch
QUALITY GATES ASSESSMENT:
✅ GATE 1: Test Coverage
- Target: ≥60%
- Actual: [X]%
- Status: [PASS / FAIL / CONDITIONAL PASS]
- Notes: [Details]
✅ GATE 2: Error Handling
- Target: 100% (21/all scripts)
- Actual: [X]% ([Y]/all scripts)
- Status: [PASS / FAIL / CONDITIONAL PASS]
- Notes: [Details]
✅ GATE 3: Production Monitoring
- Target: Operational (Prometheus + Grafana + Jaeger)
- Actual: [Status]
- Status: [PASS / FAIL / CONDITIONAL PASS]
- Notes: [Details]
✅ GATE 4: Documentation Navigation
- Target: 0 broken links, complete navigation
- Actual: [X broken links]
- Status: [PASS / FAIL / CONDITIONAL PASS]
- Notes: [Details]
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: [GO / CONDITIONAL GO / NO-GO]
RATIONALE:
[2-3 paragraphs explaining the recommendation]
IF GO:
- Launch Date: December 10, 2025
- Monitoring Plan: [Details]
- Rollback Plan: [Details]
- Success Metrics: [Details]
IF CONDITIONAL GO:
- Conditions: [List conditions]
- Mitigation: [Mitigation plan]
- Phase 1.5: [Details]
IF NO-GO:
- Remaining Work: [Details]
- Revised Timeline: [New launch date]
- Resource Needs: [Details]
DECISION MAKERS:
- CTO: [Name] - [Approve/Reject/Defer]
- Product Owner: [Name] - [Approve/Reject/Defer]
- Engineering Lead: [Name] - [Approve/Reject/Defer]
FINAL DECISION: [Will be recorded here]
Appendix: Historical Data
Similar Project Risk Patterns
From previous sprints and industry data
| Risk Type | Probability | Actual Occurrence | Mitigation Success |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test coverage gap | 40% | 35% | 85% (extended timeline) |
| Integration issues | 35% | 42% | 90% (early testing caught) |
| Scope creep | 60% | 55% | 95% (parking lot worked) |
| Resource unavailable | 15% | 10% | 75% (cross-training helped) |
| Quality gate failure | 25% | 20% | 80% (partial GO accepted) |
Lessons Learned
- ✅ Early testing critical: Integration issues caught early are 5x easier to fix
- ✅ Buffer time works: 20% slack time absorbed 90% of delays
- ✅ Scope control essential: Strict scope prevented 12+ feature requests
- ✅ Communication key: Daily standups caught 80% of risks early
Quick Reference: Risk Response Times
| Risk Level | Detection | Escalation | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 Critical | Immediate | <2 hours | Same day |
| P1 High | Same day | <4 hours | 1-2 days |
| P2 Medium | Within 2 days | <24 hours | 3-5 days |
| P3 Low | Weekly review | No escalation | Phase 2 |
Document Version: 1.0 Created: November 22, 2025 Owner: CODITECT Core Team Status: Active - Phase 1 Execution Next Review: December 6, 2025 (GO/NO-GO)