vamseeachanta Split a plan when MAJOR findings converge on governance, not substance
When to use
Use this when a plan survives multiple adversarial review waves and:
- the core decision or scope is stable
- one provider starts treating it as substantively ready
- repeated Claude/Codex MAJOR findings keep focusing on:
- validator semantics
- review-artifact bookkeeping
- evidence attestation
- parser/test harness details
- CI follow-up mechanics
- self-referential plan-governance wording
This is a signal the plan is over-coupling two different concerns.
Key pattern
Separate:
- the normative/content decision
- the enforcement/validator/governance machinery
Do NOT keep tightening the same monolithic plan indefinitely once MAJOR findings stop being about the business/architecture decision itself.
Trigger criteria
Split when most of these are true:
- 3+ review waves already completed
- MAJOR findings are recurring but narrow to governance/tooling concerns
- the mission/content/architecture direction is no longer the disputed part
- the plan is accumulating bookkeeping complexity (many review waves, artifact tables, attestation caveats, validator semantics)
- continued iteration is creating self-referential governance churn
Recommended split shape
Packet A — normative contract / mission / content
Keep only:
- canonical contract or decision artifact
- document reconciliation
- glossary / non-goals / role map
- bounded cross-links required to make the contract navigable
- explicit deferrals for out-of-scope follow-ons
Remove from Packet A:
- advanced validator/parser semantics
- exhaustive review-wave bookkeeping as acceptance criteria
- CI enforcement requirements as approval blockers
- brittle invariance checks that are about implementation machinery, not decision quality
Packet B — validator / governance enforcement
Move here:
- validator script design
- test harness design
- fixture coverage for parser/normalization behavior
- CI integration / hooks / enforcement follow-up
- immutable-file checks or attestation-heavy guardrails
How to explain the split
Use wording like:
- "The remaining MAJOR findings are no longer about the core mission/architecture decision."
- "They are about enforcement mechanics, evidence bookkeeping, and validator semantics."
- "That means the plan should be split rather than tightened indefinitely."
Practical execution steps
- Review the latest provider artifacts and classify findings into:
- substantive decision/content blockers
- governance/enforcement/tooling blockers
- If substantive blockers are mostly gone, stop rerunning the monolithic plan.
- Write a short decision artifact explaining why the split is now higher leverage.
- Draft Packet A from the stable decision/content material.
- Draft Packet B from the validator/governance material.
- Do not surface the original monolithic draft as approval-ready.
Evidence from live use
Observed on workspace-hub issue #1525 (workspace-hub mission/control-plane contract):
- repeated adversarial waves converged on MAJORs about:
- review-wave bookkeeping
- validator semantics
- artifact/evidence consistency
- AGENTS immutability enforcement
- while the underlying mission contract itself had become substantively stable
- correct response: recommend splitting into:
- mission-contract packet
- validator/enforcement packet
Anti-pattern to avoid
Do not keep adding more validator semantics, review-artifact tables, and governance caveats to the same content plan after reviewers have stopped disputing the actual content decision. That increases fragility without increasing approval readiness.