Project Structure Analysis Report: Rollout-Master vs V2 Master Plan
Analysis Date: 2025-12-18 Analyst: Senior Software Architect Agent Purpose: Compare project planning structures and provide consolidation recommendations
Executive Summary
Two distinct project planning approaches exist within the CODITECT ecosystem:
- Rollout-Master PROJECT-PLAN.md (3,528 lines) - Operational master orchestrator for 57 submodules
- V2-MASTER-PROJECT-PLAN.md (519 lines) - ADR-006 compliant hierarchical work item structure
Recommendation: These documents serve different but complementary purposes and should both be preserved with clear delineation of roles.
1. Structural Comparison
Rollout-Master PROJECT-PLAN.md
Type: Operational Orchestration Document Lines: 3,528 (72KB) Structure: Phase-based with submodule coordination Focus: Real-world execution tracking across distributed repositories
Key Sections:
1. Executive Summary (current status, milestones, budget)
2. Project Overview (purpose, context, objectives)
3. Master Repository Architecture (57 submodules, 8 categories)
4. Multi-Agent Orchestration Strategy (119 agents, 129 commands)
5. Distributed Orchestrator Architecture (master → submodule coordination)
6. Current Status: Beta Testing Phase
7. Implementation Phases (0-5 with completion tracking)
8. Submodule Categories & Coordination
9. Quality Gates & Success Criteria
10. Risk Management
11. Agent Assignment Matrix
12. Governance & Decision Authority
13. Budget Breakdown
14. Timeline & Dependencies
15. Monitoring & Metrics
ADR-006 Compliance: PARTIAL
- Has phases (Phase 0-5) but not Epic → Feature → Task hierarchy
- Uses flat task lists with checkboxes
- No explicit Sprint management
- No Project → Sub-Project → Epic mapping (uses Phases instead)
Strengths:
- Comprehensive operational context (infrastructure status, GKE deployments)
- Real-world budget tracking ($2.5M investment)
- Actual submodule coordination (57 repos)
- Multi-agent orchestration patterns (119 agents)
- Detailed phase-gate criteria
- Risk management and governance
- Living document with continuous updates
Weaknesses:
- Lacks hierarchical work item structure (ADR-006)
- No automatic completion rollup
- Phase-based vs Epic-based organization
- Limited sprint management
- No requirements traceability matrix
V2-MASTER-PROJECT-PLAN.md
Type: Strategic Hierarchical Plan Template Lines: 519 Structure: ADR-006 compliant (Project → Epic → Feature → Task) Focus: Future-state work item hierarchy with database backing
Key Sections:
1. Executive Summary (vision, scope, current sprint)
2. Project Hierarchy (P001 → E001-E010 → Features → Tasks)
3. Epic Summary Table (10 epics, 17,546 tasks)
4. Epic Details (quick reference for E001-E010)
5. Sprint Roadmap (Sprint 25-56, 32 sprints total)
6. Success Metrics (project + epic level KPIs)
7. Risk Management (5 critical risks)
8. Dependencies & Constraints
9. Governance & Decision Rights
10. Communication Plan
11. Quality Standards
12. V1 → V2 Migration
13. Future Enhancements (ADR-006 Phases 2-5)
ADR-006 Compliance: FULL
- Project → Sub-Project → Epic → Feature → Task → Subtask hierarchy
- Sprint time-boxing (Sprint 25-56)
- Completion percentage rollup (planned, 0% baseline)
- Work item IDs (E001, F001.1, T001)
- Database-backed (planned SQLite schema)
Strengths:
- Perfect ADR-006 alignment
- Hierarchical work item structure
- Sprint-based planning (32 sprints)
- Completion rollup design
- Scalable to 17,546 tasks
- Clear epic/feature/task IDs
- Database integration roadmap
Weaknesses:
- Abstract template (0% actual completion)
- No operational infrastructure context
- No real budget tracking
- No actual submodule coordination details
- No multi-agent orchestration patterns
- Theoretical future-state (implementation planned for Sprints 26-29)
2. ADR-006 Alignment Analysis
ADR-006 Requirements
From ADR-006-WORK-ITEM-HIERARCHY.md:
Must-Have:
- ✅ Project and Sub-Project containers (maps to submodules)
- ✅ Epic → Feature → Task hierarchy with parent_id relationships
- ✅ Sprint time-boxing with task assignment
- ✅ Automatic completion percentage rollup
- ✅ Query commands via /cxq integration
Rollout-Master Alignment: 40%
| Requirement | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Project/Sub-Project containers | ⚠️ PARTIAL | Uses "Master Repo + 57 Submodules" but not ADR-006 schema |
| Epic → Feature → Task hierarchy | ❌ NO | Uses Phase → Tasks (flat list) |
| Sprint time-boxing | ❌ NO | Uses Phase gates instead |
| Completion rollup | ❌ NO | Manual checkbox counting |
| /cxq integration | ❌ NO | Not implemented |
Current Structure:
Phase (0-5) → Tasks (flat list with checkboxes)
Master Repo → 57 Submodules (each with own PROJECT-PLAN.md)
Gap: No Epic → Feature → Task hierarchy, no sprint management, no database backing.
V2 Master Plan Alignment: 100%
| Requirement | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Project/Sub-Project containers | ✅ YES | P001 → SP001-SP057 (submodules) |
| Epic → Feature → Task hierarchy | ✅ YES | E001-E010 → F00X.Y → T00X |
| Sprint time-boxing | ✅ YES | Sprint 25-56 (32 sprints) |
| Completion rollup | ✅ DESIGNED | SQLite views for aggregation |
| /cxq integration | ✅ PLANNED | Phase 3 implementation |
Designed Structure:
P001: CODITECT Platform
├── SP001: coditect-core
│ ├── E001: Core Platform Autonomy
│ │ ├── F001.1: Component Activation System
│ │ │ ├── T001: Task 1
│ │ │ └── T002: Task 2
│ │ └── F001.2: Orchestrator Enhancement
│ └── E002: Toon UI Integration
└── SP002-SP057: Other submodules
Strength: Perfect alignment with ADR-006 specification.
3. Which Structure Better Follows ADR-006?
Clear Winner: V2-MASTER-PROJECT-PLAN.md
Reasoning:
- 100% ADR-006 compliant vs 40% for rollout-master
- Hierarchical work items (Epic → Feature → Task) vs flat phase lists
- Sprint-based planning (32 sprints) vs phase gates
- Database-backed design with SQLite schema vs markdown checkboxes
- Completion rollup via SQL views vs manual counting
- /cxq integration roadmap vs no query interface
However...
V2 is theoretical (0% complete) while rollout-master is operational (Beta complete, Pilot starting Dec 24).
4. Unified Structure Recommendations
Strategy: Dual-Track Approach (Preserve Both)
Recommendation: Do NOT consolidate. Instead, clarify roles and create bidirectional links.
Track 1: Rollout-Master PROJECT-PLAN.md (Operational Master)
Role: Master orchestrator for 57 submodules with real-time execution tracking
Preserve:
- Executive summary with actual status (Beta complete, Pilot Dec 24)
- Infrastructure inventory (GKE cluster, FoundationDB, Cloud SQL)
- Budget tracking ($2.5M investment, actual spend)
- Multi-agent orchestration (119 agents, 129 commands)
- Submodule coordination (57 repos across 8 categories)
- Risk management and governance
- Phase-based gates (Phase 0-5)
Enhance (ADR-006 Light):
- Add mapping to V2 epics in each phase
- Reference V2 work item IDs where applicable
- Link to V2 for detailed task breakdowns
Example Enhancement:
### Phase 0.8: Core Category Organization
**Mapped to V2:**
- Epic: E001 - Core Platform Autonomy
- Features: F001.1 (Component Activation), F001.2 (Orchestrator)
- Details: See [V2 E001 Overview](../v2/epics/E001-AUTONOMY/EPIC-OVERVIEW.md)
**Phase Tasks:**
- [ ] Setup 5 core submodules (coditect-core, architecture, framework, dashboard, web-search)
- [ ] Verify CLAUDE.md refactoring complete (90+ score)
- [ ] Deploy PROJECT-PLAN.md + TASKLIST.md to each submodule
Track 2: V2-MASTER-PROJECT-PLAN.md (Strategic ADR-006 Structure)
Role: Future-state hierarchical work item system with database backing
Preserve:
- Full ADR-006 compliance (Project → Epic → Feature → Task)
- 10 epics with 17,546 tasks
- Sprint roadmap (Sprint 25-56)
- Database schema design (SQLite)
- /cxq integration plan
Enhance (Real-World Grounding):
- Map to rollout-master phases
- Import actual infrastructure from rollout-master
- Track real completion % (not 0% baseline)
- Link to actual submodule PROJECT-PLANs
Example Enhancement:
### E001: Core Platform Autonomy
**Mapped from Rollout-Master:**
- Phase: 0.8 (Core Category Organization)
- Infrastructure: GKE cluster operational (79d uptime)
- Budget: $2.5K allocated
- Timeline: Dec 10-11, 2025
**Real Completion:** 15% (vs 0% baseline)
- F001.1: Component Activation - 45% (coditect-telemetry complete)
- F001.2: Orchestrator Enhancement - 0% (planned Sprint 26)
Implementation: Bidirectional Links
In Rollout-Master PROJECT-PLAN.md:
## V2 Work Item Hierarchy
This master plan uses phase-based organization for operational tracking.
For hierarchical Epic → Feature → Task structure, see:
- **V2 Master Plan:** [docs/05-project-planning/v2/V2-MASTER-PROJECT-PLAN.md](../submodules/core/coditect-core/docs/05-project-planning/v2/V2-MASTER-PROJECT-PLAN.md)
- **Epic Details:** [v2/epics/E00X-*/EPIC-OVERVIEW.md](../submodules/core/coditect-core/docs/05-project-planning/v2/epics/)
- **Sprint Plans:** [v2/sprints/Sprint-N/SPRINT-PLAN.md](../submodules/core/coditect-core/docs/05-project-planning/v2/sprints/)
**Phase → Epic Mapping:**
- Phase 0.8 → E001: Core Platform Autonomy
- Phase 0.9 → E002: Toon UI Integration (partial)
- Phase 1.0 → E007: Documentation System
- Phase 1.1-1.4 → E010: Rollout & GTM
In V2-MASTER-PROJECT-PLAN.md:
## Operational Context
This V2 plan provides ADR-006 compliant hierarchical structure.
For real-world operational details, see:
- **Rollout-Master Plan:** [/docs/project-management/PROJECT-PLAN.md](../../../../docs/project-management/PROJECT-PLAN.md)
- **Infrastructure Status:** GKE cluster operational, FDB 79d uptime
- **Budget Tracking:** $2.5M total investment (see rollout-master)
- **Submodule Coordination:** 57 repos across 8 categories (see rollout-master)
- **Current Phase:** Beta Complete, Pilot starting Dec 24, 2025
**Epic → Phase Mapping:**
- E001 → Phase 0.8 (Core Organization)
- E002 → Phase 0.9 (Cloud Integration)
- E007 → Phase 1.0 (Documentation)
- E010 → Phase 1.1-1.4 (GTM Rollout)
5. What to Preserve vs Deprecate
From Rollout-Master: PRESERVE (All Critical)
Keep Everything - This is the operational source of truth
Critical Sections:
- ✅ Executive Summary (current status, milestones, budget)
- ✅ Infrastructure Inventory (GKE, FoundationDB, Cloud SQL, Redis)
- ✅ Pilot Launch Critical Path (83-day timeline to March 11)
- ✅ Beta Testing Status (actual metrics, user counts)
- ✅ Submodule Coordination (57 repos, 8 categories)
- ✅ Multi-Agent Orchestration (119 agents, 129 commands)
- ✅ Budget Breakdown ($2.5M investment tracking)
- ✅ Risk Management (actual risks, mitigations)
- ✅ Governance & Decision Authority (real approvals)
- ✅ Distributed Orchestrator Architecture (master → submodule flow)
Rationale: This document is living operational reality. Removing any section would lose critical context.
From V2 Master Plan: PRESERVE (Future Framework)
Keep Everything - This is the ADR-006 implementation blueprint
Critical Sections:
- ✅ Project Hierarchy (P001 → E001-E010)
- ✅ Epic Summary Table (10 epics, 17,546 tasks)
- ✅ Sprint Roadmap (Sprint 25-56)
- ✅ Database Schema Design (SQLite work_items table)
- ✅ Completion Rollup Algorithm (SQL views)
- ✅ /cxq Integration Plan (Phase 3)
- ✅ Future Enhancements (Phases 2-5)
Rationale: This is the architectural blueprint for transitioning from flat phase lists to hierarchical work items. Essential for ADR-006 implementation.
Deprecate: NONE
Both documents serve distinct, critical purposes.
However, consider consolidating V1 legacy files mentioned in V2:
### Legacy V1 Files (Archived) - FROM V2 PLAN
- docs/05-project-planning/PROJECT-PLAN.md → Archived (historical reference)
- docs/05-project-planning/TASKLIST.md → Archived
- docs/05-project-planning/MASTER-TASKLISTS-CONSOLIDATED.md → Archived
Action: Verify if these exist in coditect-core and if they conflict with rollout-master.
6. Recommended Actions
Immediate (This Week)
-
Add Cross-References
- Insert bidirectional links between rollout-master and V2 plans
- Map phases to epics in both directions
- Document which is operational vs strategic
-
Clarify Document Roles
- Update both README files to explain dual-track approach
- Create PLANNING-ARCHITECTURE.md explaining the relationship
- Add navigation guide for users
-
Verify No Conflicts
- Check if V1 archived files exist in coditect-core
- Ensure no duplicate tracking systems
- Confirm rollout-master is not being deprecated
Short-Term (Next Sprint)
-
Pilot ADR-006 Integration
- Import Phase 0.8 tasks into V2 Epic E001
- Test completion rollup on real tasks
- Validate /cxq queries work with actual data
-
Create Migration Path
- Document how to transition from phase-based to epic-based
- Preserve rollout-master as master orchestrator
- Use V2 for detailed task tracking within phases
-
Update TASKLIST.md
- Add V2 work item IDs to rollout-master tasks
- Link phase tasks to epic/feature/task IDs
- Enable traceability without losing operational context
Long-Term (Post-Pilot)
-
Full ADR-006 Implementation
- Implement SQLite schema (ADR-006 Phase 1)
- Build /cxq integration (ADR-006 Phase 3)
- Automate completion rollup (ADR-006 Phase 4)
-
Unified Reporting
- Generate dashboards showing both phase and epic progress
- Create stakeholder views using both documents
- Maintain operational master while using ADR-006 for analytics
7. Final Recommendation
DO NOT CONSOLIDATE - INTEGRATE INSTEAD
Rationale:
-
Different Purposes:
- Rollout-Master = Operational orchestrator for 57 submodules (NOW)
- V2 Master Plan = Strategic ADR-006 blueprint (FUTURE)
-
Both Are Critical:
- Rollout-Master: Real infrastructure, budgets, agents, submodules
- V2 Master Plan: Hierarchical structure, database design, /cxq integration
-
Complementary, Not Redundant:
- Rollout-Master provides operational context
- V2 provides architectural compliance
- Together they enable operational tracking WITH hierarchical structure
Unified Strategy
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Rollout-Master PROJECT-PLAN.md (Operational) │
│ - 57 submodules, 8 categories │
│ - $2.5M budget, GKE infrastructure │
│ - 119 agents, 129 commands │
│ - Beta → Pilot → GTM (March 11) │
│ - Phase 0-5 tracking │
└─────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────┘
│
│ Maps to
↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ V2-MASTER-PROJECT-PLAN.md (Strategic) │
│ - P001 → E001-E010 → Features → Tasks │
│ - 17,546 tasks, Sprint 25-56 │
│ - SQLite database schema │
│ - /cxq integration │
│ - ADR-006 full compliance │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Phase → Epic Mapping:
- Phase 0.8 → E001: Core Platform Autonomy
- Phase 0.9 → E002: Toon UI Integration
- Phase 1.0 → E007: Documentation System
- Phase 1.1-1.4 → E010: Rollout & GTM
Workflow:
- Rollout-Master defines operational phases and gates
- V2 Master Plan breaks phases into Epic → Feature → Task
- Both documents cross-reference each other
- /cxq queries work across both structures
- Stakeholders see both operational status AND hierarchical progress
8. Implementation Checklist
Week 1: Documentation Updates
- Add "Relationship to V2 Master Plan" section to rollout-master
- Add "Operational Context" section to V2 plan
- Create PLANNING-ARCHITECTURE.md explaining dual-track
- Update both README files with navigation guidance
Week 2: Cross-Referencing
- Map all phases to epics in rollout-master
- Map all epics to phases in V2 plan
- Add links to V2 epic files from rollout-master phases
- Add links to rollout-master from V2 epic overviews
Week 3: Pilot Integration
- Import Phase 0.8 tasks into E001 epic structure
- Test completion rollup on real data
- Validate both documents stay in sync
- Document lessons learned
Week 4: Future Planning
- Define ADR-006 implementation roadmap
- Plan SQLite schema deployment
- Design /cxq integration
- Create migration strategy for remaining phases
Appendix: Document Comparison Matrix
| Aspect | Rollout-Master | V2 Master Plan | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADR-006 Compliance | 40% (partial) | 100% (full) | V2 |
| Operational Reality | 100% (live) | 0% (theoretical) | Rollout |
| Infrastructure Context | Complete (GKE, FDB) | None | Rollout |
| Budget Tracking | $2.5M real | Theoretical | Rollout |
| Submodule Coordination | 57 repos | Abstract | Rollout |
| Hierarchical Structure | None (flat) | Perfect (ADR-006) | V2 |
| Sprint Management | Phase gates | 32 sprints | V2 |
| Completion Rollup | Manual checkboxes | SQL views | V2 |
| Multi-Agent Orchestration | 119 agents detailed | Generic | Rollout |
| Database Integration | None | SQLite schema | V2 |
| /cxq Queries | Not planned | Phase 3 roadmap | V2 |
| Stakeholder Reporting | Comprehensive | Metrics only | Rollout |
| Risk Management | Detailed (5 risks) | Generic (5 risks) | Rollout |
| Governance | Real decision authority | Generic process | Rollout |
| Timeline Accuracy | Actual dates/status | Theoretical sprints | Rollout |
Verdict: Both documents excel in different dimensions. Integration, not consolidation, is the optimal path.
Questions for Stakeholders
- Is the goal to replace rollout-master with V2? NO - they serve different purposes
- Should we maintain both indefinitely? YES - until full ADR-006 implementation
- Which is the source of truth? BOTH - operational (rollout) + strategic (V2)
- How do we prevent divergence? Cross-references + bidirectional mapping
- When do we deprecate phases? NEVER - phases map to epics, both coexist
Status: Analysis Complete Next Steps: Review with stakeholders, implement Week 1 documentation updates Owner: Project Planning Team Date: 2025-12-18
Document Version: 1.0.0 Last Updated: 2025-12-18 Author: Senior Software Architect Agent Copyright: 2025 AZ1.AI INC. All rights reserved.