Product Council

Canonical source: docs/council/PRODUCT-COUNCIL.md · Snapshot commit: e8130729d005

Life in Days Product Council

Updated: 2026-08-13

Status: preserved planning-council record. Its original universal authorization stop is superseded by the directly activated 2026-08-14 Goal only as recorded in the P0 execution authorization. All truthful implementation, deployment, recovery, and launch evidence disclaimers remain in force.

Purpose

The Product Council turns the confirmed Life in Days discovery decisions into a coherent product specification, user-experience specification, executable project tracker, and technical implementation plan. It exists to prevent any one discipline from silently trading away fidelity, privacy, usability, recoverability, delivery realism, or technical safety.

Product mandate

Life in Days is a private, single-user visual memory archive. It joins eligible VoiceNotes journal text, manually uploaded journal files, and Telegram photos into trustworthy Journal Days for calendar-based revisiting and reflection. Authentic Source Items remain separate from every AI-created Derived Artifact. The MVP is not a coach, social product, reminder system, or historical-import tool.

Council members

Council seat	Active agent	Primary accountability	Owned artifact
Product chair and final integrator	Codex primary agent	Reconcile the council, preserve user decisions, validate the complete artifact set, and escalate decisions only Arun can make	This charter and final integrated set
Senior Product Manager	council_senior_pm	Product outcomes, scope, requirements, priorities, acceptance criteria, and requirement traceability	Product Requirements
UI/UX Design Lead	council_ux_lead	Information architecture, end-to-end flows, interaction states, content design, accessibility, and visual hierarchy	UX Specification
Project Manager	council_project_manager	Milestones, epics, tasks, dependencies, evidence, risks, change control, and delivery governance	Project Tracker
Technical Architect	council_technical_architect	System boundaries, data model, security, integrations, implementation sequence, verification, operations, and recovery design	Implementation Plan

The durable role contracts are recorded under docs/council/agents. The active agents are task-scoped collaborators for this council session; they are not published autonomous services and have no production access.

Sources of truth

Precedence is explicit:

1. Arun's direct decisions and corrections.
2. Proposed shared understanding, after Arun explicitly confirms it.
3. Detailed discovery requirements.
4. Domain language.
5. Evidence and constraints in the research and evaluation reports.
6. Council artifacts created from those sources.

When two sources conflict, the council does not average them. It records the conflict, follows the higher-precedence source, and escalates any unresolved user preference to Arun.

Council operating principles

• Authenticity before synthesis: source journals and photos are never replaced by generated material.
• Privacy before convenience: no real photo or photo-derived data enters an AI request.
• Explicit state before magic: conflicts, staleness, suppressions, retries, provider changes, and failures remain visible.
• No silent scope expansion: deferred capabilities do not enter MVP through implementation convenience.
• No silent technical assumptions: model selection, VoiceNotes behavior, encryption design, and credentials stay gated until their approved decision mechanism completes.
• Evidence before status: work is complete only when its named acceptance evidence exists.
• Recoverability before launch: a backup existing is not the same as a successful restore.
• Accessibility is product behavior: keyboard, focus, contrast, motion, and responsive states are acceptance criteria rather than polish.
• One accountable owner: each requirement, task, risk, and decision has one accountable council role even when several roles contribute.

Decision rights

Decision class	Recommends	Must review	Final authority
Product promise, MVP scope, privacy boundary, spend ceiling	Senior Product Manager	Full council	Arun
Information architecture, interaction behavior, content design	UI/UX Design Lead	Product and Architecture	Arun for material scope changes; Design Lead within confirmed scope
Milestone sequence, dependencies, evidence, status	Project Manager	Full council	Product chair within confirmed scope
Architecture, data model, integration contract, security controls	Technical Architect	Product, Design, Project	Arun for hard-to-reverse or scope-changing choices; Architect for reversible implementation details after authorization
Provider/model dropdown contents	Product and Architecture	Full council	Approved evaluation protocol, then Arun if a hard gate fails or an exception is needed
Deployment, DNS, credentials, paid actions, launch	Relevant owner	Full council	Arun

Required artifacts and quality bar

Product Requirements Document

Must state the problem, product promise, goals, measurable outcomes, non-goals, persona, complete functional and non-functional behavior, user stories, acceptance criteria, dependencies, personal-data handling, risks, and deferred scope. Every confirmed discovery decision must be represented or traceably delegated to a linked specification.

UX Specification

Must define the information architecture, page anatomy, primary and recovery flows, interaction states, responsive rules, visual hierarchy, content language, accessibility behavior, privacy cues, and usability-validation plan. It must include uncomfortable states such as missing dates, stale generations, upstream conflicts, provider refusal, duplicate media, exhausted budget, failed export, Trash, and recovery status.

Project Tracker

Must break the product into stage-gated milestones, deliverables, epics, and granular tasks. Every task needs a stable ID, accountable role, dependencies, status, completion evidence, and milestone. It must distinguish already-completed discovery from unstarted implementation and must not invent dates or claim progress.

Implementation Plan

Must define the proposed system architecture, domain/data model, boundaries, security controls, integrations, background jobs, storage lifecycle, APIs, repository structure, testing strategy, observability, backup/restore, deployment sequence, rollback, and launch gates. Gated decisions must be visibly gated rather than disguised as final implementation choices.

Review workflow

1. Each role reads the complete discovery baseline, not only its own discipline's report.
2. Each role drafts only its owned artifact and records source decisions, dependencies, and unresolved gates.
3. The Technical Architect checks all drafts for feasibility, privacy-boundary integrity, operational completeness, and hidden implementation assumptions.
4. The Product Manager checks that all confirmed and deferred features are represented with unambiguous acceptance behavior.
5. The UI/UX Design Lead checks that every user-visible state has a discoverable, accessible interaction.
6. The Project Manager checks that every promised behavior has build, test, evidence, and launch work with valid dependencies.
7. The product chair reconciles cross-review findings, runs link/Markdown/traceability audits, and commits one coherent planning baseline.
8. Any remaining user decision returns to Arun; the council never resolves personal preference by majority vote.

Stage gates

Gate	Entry condition	Required evidence	Exit authority
G0 — Planning baseline	Discovery evidence exists	Council-reviewed PRD, UX specification, implementation plan, tracker, traceability matrix, and closed cross-review findings	Product Council; Arun acknowledges any recorded gap
G1 — Shared understanding	G0 passed and the decision frontier is empty	Arun explicitly confirms the shared-understanding document	Arun
G2 — Architecture baseline	G1 passed	Reviewed architecture, threat model, required ADRs, and accepted material trade-offs	Arun for material trade-offs; council for a fully passing baseline
G3 — Risk-retiring evaluations	G1 passed	VoiceNotes synthetic spike plus signed text/artwork evaluations, or an explicitly reopened decision branch	Arun for exceptions; council for fully passing evidence
G4 — Build readiness	Applicable G2/G3 outcomes passed	Ready backlog, test strategy, development environment, and traceability reviewed	Product chair and Technical Architect
G5 — Feature complete	Authorized implementation complete in a non-production environment	Full MVP traceability and no open severity-1/2 defect	Full council
G6 — Release candidate	G5 passed	Security/privacy, accessibility/browser, fault, backup/restore, budget, and capacity evidence	Full council and Arun acceptance
G7 — Production readiness	G6 passed and deployment is explicitly authorized	Production access, callbacks, origin hardening, monitoring, backup, and rollback checks	Arun
G8 — Recovery Ceremony and go/no-go	G7 passed	Two off-server key copies plus representative restore/decrypt	Arun
G9 — Private launch accepted	G8 passed	First live prospective journey is captured, backed up, retrieved, and reflected correctly	Arun

No later gate can compensate for an earlier gate that has not passed.

Current execution interpretation: The table above remains historical planning provenance. The activated Goal replaces G1 as a universal stop with release-specific evidence gates and a five-seat execution council. Routine R0–R8 decisions are delegated when every named gate passes; accounts/MFA/secrets, material terms/spend/provider choices, authentic content/UAT, recovery-key custody and human ceremony steps, final R9 authority, and irreversible R10 stages remain human-only.

RACI by workstream

Workstream	Product	Design	Project	Architecture	Arun
Scope and outcomes	R	C	C	C	A
Requirements and acceptance criteria	A/R	C	C	C	I
Information architecture and interaction	C	A/R	C	C	I
Accessibility and content behavior	C	A/R	C	C	I
Architecture and data model	C	C	C	A/R	I or A for gated choices
Security and privacy controls	C	C	C	R	A
Schedule, dependencies, and status	C	C	A/R	C	I
Provider/model evaluation	A	C	C	R	A for exceptions
Test and launch readiness	A	R	R	R	A
Deployment and production mutation	I	I	C	R	A

Legend: A accountable, R responsible, C consulted, I informed.

Council cadence during delivery

• Planning baseline review: once per artifact revision that changes scope, architecture, or milestone dependencies.
• Milestone entry review: confirm Definition of Ready and blockers before work starts.
• Milestone exit review: inspect named evidence; never close from a verbal status alone.
• Risk review: at every milestone boundary and immediately when a privacy, recoverability, spend, or upstream-contract risk changes.
• Decision review: within the pull request or decision record that introduces the choice.
• Launch review: one full-council review at G6 and one final owner review at G8 after the Recovery Ceremony.

Change control

1. Record the proposed change and its reason in the tracker.
2. Identify affected PRD requirements, UX flows, tasks, architecture sections, costs, and risks.
3. Classify it as clarification, reversible implementation detail, hard-to-reverse architecture choice, product-scope change, or privacy-boundary change.
4. Obtain the authority named in the decision-rights table.
5. Update every affected artifact in one coordinated change.
6. Preserve superseded decisions or links so the rationale remains auditable.

Disagreement and escalation

• A privacy-boundary concern pauses the affected design until resolved.
• A source-fidelity concern blocks any behavior that could overwrite, merge, misdate, or misrepresent authentic material.
• A recovery concern blocks storage migration or launch until restoration evidence exists.
• A usability concern blocks a user-facing flow when the only path depends on hidden state, inaccessible controls, or destructive ambiguity.
• A schedule concern changes sequencing or scope visibility; it never silently weakens acceptance criteria.
• A provider hard-gate failure returns to Arun rather than producing a compromise model choice.

Current council record

Date	Session	Result
2026-08-13	Council formation and planning-artifact draft	Four role-agents assigned; independent Product, UX, Architecture, and Project review began.
2026-08-13	Planning-baseline review	All four specialist seats approved after reconciliation. G0 closed with no open P0/P1 planning blocker; G1 remains blocked on Arun's explicit shared-understanding confirmation.
2026-08-14	P0 execution-control review	A five-seat execution council was formed under the directly activated Goal. Local P0 remediation may proceed; private/live R0 remains held.

2026-08-14 execution-council addendum

Execution seat	Current accountability	Durable charter
Expert Product Manager	71-requirement boundary, release outcomes, acceptance, non-goals and product veto	Execution Council Charter
Expert UI/UX Designer	Complete journeys/states, content, responsive/accessibility/usability and design veto	Execution Council Charter
Technical Architect	Architecture, threats, storage, host admission, migration, recovery, rollback and technical veto	Execution Council Charter
Independent QA Lead	Test strategy, evidence integrity, severity, privacy/security, browser/accessibility and QA veto	QA Lead Charter
Expert Project Manager	Dependencies, risk/change, status, GitHub, workbook, Wiki and delivery-evidence veto	Execution Council Charter

The primary agent chairs and integrates but does not replace any seat. Current RACI and non-delegable boundaries are normative in the execution charter and authorization addendum.

References

• Proposed shared understanding
• Discovery requirements
• Product and integration research
• AI text evaluation protocol
• AI artwork evaluation protocol
• Media storage evaluation
• Planning-baseline council review
• P0 execution authorization
• P0 execution decisions