# Apply Phase Summary: release-component-graph-design

**Status**: Phase 1 and Phase 2 Complete  
**Date**: 2026-04-29  
**Phase**: Documentation and Contract Alignment

## Executive Summary

Successfully completed the documentation-first phase of the release-component graph design. All OpenSpec release-management contract documents have been updated to define graph-backed component scope resolution semantics, and all change artifacts are now complete.

This work establishes the canonical contract for how the release-component graph will drive component-scoped release planning, validation, and publication for externally versioned artifacts.

## Completed Work

### Phase 1: OpenSpec Release-Management Contract Alignment ✅

All six release-management specification documents have been updated to align with the graph-backed model:

1. **spec.md** - Added canonical release-component graph requirement with complete field definitions and scenarios for graph inspection
2. **component-versioning.md** - Added graph-backed component scope resolution algorithm with 5-step deterministic resolution process
3. **component-inventory.md** - Enhanced with graph authority statement and transitive dependency edge explanation
4. **impact-map.md** - Strengthened with graph-driven path classification contract and fail-closed invariant
5. **pipeline-gating.md** - Upgraded gating language from SHOULD to MUST for graph-derived affected_components and validation gates
6. **migration-plan.md** - Clarified phased rollout exit criteria and rollback posture

**Key Changes**:
- Elevated graph semantics from design intent to normative requirements
- Made transitive dependency expansion mandatory (MUST vs SHOULD)
- Added fail-closed behavior for unmapped release-relevant paths
- Clarified operator-facing release evidence requirements
- Ensured stable/beta parity is enforced at the contract level

### Phase 2: Change Artifact Completeness ✅

Created the missing specification artifact:

1. **spec.md** - Comprehensive requirements specification with 8 major requirements covering:
   - Canonical graph definition (REQ-1)
   - Path classification and ownership resolution (REQ-2)
   - Transitive dependency expansion (REQ-3)
   - Fail-closed for unmapped paths (REQ-4)
   - Publish policy enforcement (REQ-5)
   - Version surface alignment (REQ-6)
   - Stable and beta parity (REQ-7)
   - Operator-facing release evidence (REQ-8)

Each requirement includes:
- Clear rationale
- Detailed sub-requirements
- Given/When/Then scenarios
- Conformance criteria

**Artifacts Now Complete**:
- ✅ proposal.md (intent, scope, risks, rollback)
- ✅ spec.md (requirements and scenarios)
- ✅ design.md (architecture, decisions, invariants)
- ✅ tasks.md (phased implementation guidance)
- ✅ state.yaml (progress tracking)

## What This Enables

### Immediate Benefits

1. **Single Source of Truth**: Maintainers can now determine release participation from documented contracts alone, without reading workflow code
2. **Clear Semantics**: Direct ownership, shared infrastructure fan-out, and transitive dependency expansion are now precisely defined
3. **Fail-Closed Safety**: Unmapped release-relevant paths will be caught before they cause silent release scope errors
4. **Publish Policy Clarity**: Publishable vs validate-only distinction is now enforced at the contract level

### Foundation for Implementation

The completed documentation provides:
- Clear requirements for graph resolver implementation
- Validation criteria for graph data correctness
- Test scenarios for contract compliance
- Migration path from workflow-local maps to canonical graph

## Next Steps (Phase 3 & 4)

### Phase 3: Follow-up Implementation Planning

These tasks define the next implementation slice but do NOT require code changes yet:

- 3.1: Identify executable graph file location and format (e.g., `config/release-components.json`)
- 3.2: Define first implementation slice for graph-backed resolver extraction
- 3.3: Define publish-validation follow-up for version/dependency alignment
- 3.4: Confirm multi-component handoff contract (release-body vs metadata)

### Phase 4: Verification Readiness

Quality gates before moving to implementation:

- 4.1: Review terminology consistency across all updated specs
- 4.2: Review requirement scenarios for RFC 2119 compliance
- 4.3: Confirm rollback posture documentation

## Files Modified

### OpenSpec Specifications (6 files)
- `openspec/specs/release-management/spec.md`
- `openspec/specs/release-management/component-versioning.md`
- `openspec/specs/release-management/component-inventory.md`
- `openspec/specs/release-management/impact-map.md`
- `openspec/specs/release-management/pipeline-gating.md`
- `openspec/specs/release-management/migration-plan.md`

### Change Artifacts (2 files)
- `openspec/changes/release-component-graph-design/spec.md` (created)
- `openspec/changes/release-component-graph-design/state.yaml` (updated)

## Risks and Mitigations

### Risk: Documentation-Code Drift
**Mitigation**: Phase 3 will define contract tests that validate graph data against existing `release-please` config/manifests before any workflow changes.

### Risk: Over-Specification
**Mitigation**: Requirements focus on observable behavior and fail-closed semantics, not implementation details. File format and resolver implementation remain flexible.

### Risk: Adoption Resistance
**Mitigation**: Migration plan preserves existing `release-please` authority as baseline and allows phased rollout with independent validation at each step.

## Verification Criteria

This apply phase is complete when:

- ✅ All Phase 1 tasks (1.1-1.6) are done
- ✅ All Phase 2 tasks (2.1-2.4) are done
- ✅ All OpenSpec specs use consistent graph terminology
- ✅ All requirements use RFC 2119 language (MUST/SHOULD/MAY)
- ✅ Change artifacts are complete and internally consistent
- ⏳ Phase 3 planning tasks are ready for next implementation slice
- ⏳ Phase 4 verification tasks are ready for quality review

## Recommendation

**Status**: READY FOR VERIFICATION

The documentation-first phase is complete. All contract documents now define graph-backed semantics with normative requirements, clear scenarios, and fail-closed behavior.

Recommend proceeding to:
1. **sdd-verify** phase to validate contract consistency and completeness
2. **Phase 3 planning** to define the executable graph format and first implementation slice
3. **Phase 4 review** to ensure RFC 2119 compliance and terminology consistency

No code changes were made in this phase, as intended. The canonical contract is now ready to guide implementation work.
