---
id: T-815
name: "traceAI evaluation — OpenTelemetry AI observability vs framework directives"
description: >
  Inception: traceAI evaluation — OpenTelemetry AI observability vs framework directives

status: work-completed
workflow_type: inception
owner: human
horizon:
tags: []
components: []
related_tasks: []
created: 2026-04-03T20:43:08Z
last_update: '2026-06-11T22:24:30Z'
date_finished: 2026-04-13T13:21:38Z
target_blast_radius: 3   # T-2193 migration default (M=small-subsystem floor)
voi_score: 0.5            # T-2193 migration default (medium)
bvp_scores_proposed:
  - ts: '2026-06-11T22:24:30Z'
    estimator: bvp-estimator-v1-heuristic
    scores:
      D1: 2
      D2: 2
      D3: 2
      D4: 2
      F-RECALL: 2
      F-ORCH: 2
      F3: 2
      F1: 2
      F2: 2
    rationale: D1=2 (no-signal); D2=2 (no-signal); D3=2 (no-signal); D4=2 
      (no-signal); F-RECALL=2 (no-signal); F-ORCH=2 (no-signal); F3=2 
      (no-signal); F1=2 (no-signal); F2=2 (no-signal)
    rubric_sha: e4a00f38e801
---

# T-815: traceAI evaluation — OpenTelemetry AI observability vs framework directives

## Problem Statement

Evaluate traceAI (open-source OpenTelemetry-based AI observability) against our 4 constitutional directives. Determine whether patterns, integrations, or architectural ideas are worth adopting.

## Assumptions

- A1: traceAI's OpenTelemetry approach aligns with D4 (Portability)
- A2: Their observability fills a gap our framework doesn't cover (runtime telemetry)
- A3: Their plugin pattern may offer learnings for our hook architecture

## Exploration Plan

1. Fetch and analyze source code (instrumentors, semantic conventions)
2. Evaluate against each directive with evidence from code
3. Write recommendation

## Scope Fence

**IN:** Directive alignment analysis, pattern extraction, integration feasibility
**OUT:** Building an integration, forking code, runtime benchmarks

## Acceptance Criteria

### Agent
- [x] Problem statement validated
- [x] Assumptions tested
- [x] Recommendation written with rationale

### Human
- [ ] [REVIEW] Review exploration findings and approve go/no-go decision
  **Steps:**
  1. Read the research artifact and recommendation in this task
  2. Evaluate go/no-go criteria against findings
  3. Run: `cd /opt/999-Agentic-Engineering-Framework && bin/fw inception decide T-XXX go|no-go --rationale "your rationale"`
  **Expected:** Decision recorded, task completed
  **If not:** Ask agent for clarification on specific findings

## Go/No-Go Criteria

**GO if:**
- Patterns or architecture worth adopting for our framework
- Integration would fill a real observability gap

**NO-GO if:**
- Purely duplicates what we already do
- Incompatible with our bash/YAML/file-based approach

## Verification

<!-- Shell commands that MUST pass before work-completed. One per line.
     Lines starting with # are comments. Empty lines ignored.
     The completion gate runs each command — if any exits non-zero, completion is blocked.
     For inception tasks, verification is often not needed (decisions, not code).
-->

## Decisions

<!-- Record decisions ONLY when choosing between alternatives.
     Skip for tasks with no meaningful choices.
     Format:
     ### [date] — [topic]
     - **Chose:** [what was decided]
     - **Why:** [rationale]
     - **Rejected:** [alternatives and why not]
-->

## Recommendation

- **Recommendation:** SPLIT — NO-GO on integration, GO on pattern adoption
- **Rationale:** traceAI solves runtime telemetry (OTel spans), which our `fw costs` already covers at the level we need. Their architecture is Python SDK-level instrumentation — fundamentally different from our bash/file governance layer. But 2 patterns are directly applicable: null object fallback for hooks, and 3-tier config resolution (explicit > env var > default).
- **Evidence:**
  - D1 Antifragility: Weak — catches errors but no learning loop
  - D2 Reliability: Mixed — great app observability, silent tracing failures
  - D3 Usability: Strong — 3-line setup, env-var config, privacy controls
  - D4 Portability: Excellent — OTel-native, 4 languages, 50+ providers
  - Full analysis: `docs/reports/T-815-traceai-evaluation.md`

## Decision

**Decision**: GO

**Rationale**: - Recommendation: SPLIT — NO-GO on integration, GO on pattern adoption
- Rationale: traceAI solves runtime telemetry (OTel spans), which our `fw costs` already covers at the level we need. Their architecture is Python SDK-level instrumentation — fundamentally different from our bash/file governance layer. But 2 patterns are directly applicable: null object fallback for hooks, and 3-tier config resolution (explicit > env var > default).
- Evidence:
  - D1 Antifragility: Weak — catches errors but no learning loop
  - D2 Reliability: Mixed — great app observability, silent tracing failures
  - D3 Usability: Strong — 3-line setup, env-var config, privacy controls
  - D4 Portability: Excellent — OTel-native, 4 languages, 50+ providers
  - Full analysis: `docs/reports/T-815-traceai-evaluation.md`

**Date**: 2026-04-13T11:07:21Z

## Updates

<!-- Auto-populated by git mining at task completion.
     Manual entries optional during execution. -->

### 2026-04-03T20:43:46Z — status-update [task-update-agent]
- **Change:** status: captured → started-work

### 2026-04-12T09:26:20Z — status-update [task-update-agent]
- **Change:** horizon: now → next
- **Change:** status: started-work → captured (auto-sync)

### 2026-04-13T11:07:21Z — inception-decision [inception-workflow]
- **Action:** Recorded inception decision
- **Decision:** GO
- **Rationale:** - Recommendation: SPLIT — NO-GO on integration, GO on pattern adoption
- Rationale: traceAI solves runtime telemetry (OTel spans), which our `fw costs` already covers at the level we need. Their architecture is Python SDK-level instrumentation — fundamentally different from our bash/file governance layer. But 2 patterns are directly applicable: null object fallback for hooks, and 3-tier config resolution (explicit > env var > default).
- Evidence:
  - D1 Antifragility: Weak — catches errors but no learning loop
  - D2 Reliability: Mixed — great app observability, silent tracing failures
  - D3 Usability: Strong — 3-line setup, env-var config, privacy controls
  - D4 Portability: Excellent — OTel-native, 4 languages, 50+ providers
  - Full analysis: `docs/reports/T-815-traceai-evaluation.md`

### 2026-04-13T13:21:38Z — status-update [task-update-agent]
- **Change:** status: captured → started-work
- **Change:** horizon: next → now (auto-sync)
- **Reason:** T-1226: GO decision already recorded

### 2026-04-13T13:21:38Z — status-update [task-update-agent]
- **Change:** status: started-work → work-completed
- **Reason:** T-1226: GO decision recorded via Watchtower

## Reviewer Verdict (v1.5)

- **Scan ID:** R-3c5e0897
- **Timestamp:** 2026-06-02T15:05:01Z
- **Catalogue:** v1.3-seed
- **Overall:** PASS
- **Needs Human:** no
- **Findings:** none
