Enterprise Documentation Audit Report¶
Executive Summary¶
Forgevena has a broad documentation corpus and strong emerging governance, but its previous coverage report overstated completeness and did not model authority, ownership, freshness, historical status, or semantic drift. This audit establishes the documentation governance baseline without rewriting historical evidence or changing runtime architecture.
The generated Documentation Health Report, Coverage Matrix, Drift Report, Debt Report, and Historical Index are the current machine-derived evidence.
Audit Scope¶
- Every Markdown document under
docs/. - Canonical governance, architecture, roadmap, capability, ecosystem, security, release, operations, and developer documentation.
- Generated CLI, provider, module, template, capability, and schema references.
- Navigation, links, terminology, examples, metadata, freshness, and authority.
- Human and AI-agent consumption.
Historical phase, audit, RC, release, and version records were classified and indexed but not rewritten.
Principal Findings¶
Strengths¶
- Constitution, engineering governance, evidence funnel, roadmap authority, readiness scorecard, and compatibility evidence are defined.
- Future-system boundaries distinguish Forgevena Core, ForgeRegistry, ForgeHub, AgentSpace, Capability Studio, Source Adapters, Converters, and Host Adapters.
- Generated references use content hashes and detect unmanaged edits.
- Local-first, additive-only, consent, privacy, rollback, and human-authority guarantees are consistently stated in canonical strategy.
Critical Gaps Addressed¶
- Added one documentation governance authority and machine-readable catalog contract.
- Added explicit historical classification without rewriting historical evidence.
- Added control-level documentation thresholds so aggregate scores cannot hide critical failures.
- Added standards governance that separates practical mapping from certification claims.
- Added machine-generated ownership, lifecycle, freshness, AI-index, coverage, drift, and debt evidence.
Remaining Managed Debt¶
- Historical directory naming remains intentionally unchanged to preserve links and evidence.
- Full executable example testing requires isolated fixtures per operating system and is tracked as a future governed enhancement.
- External-link availability remains a dedicated network-enabled CI concern; deterministic local validation checks link structure and local targets.
- Formal certification requires independent scope, assessment, budget, and approval.
- Documentation localization, semantic search, and usage analytics remain Evidence Funnel research candidates.
Blind-Spot Register¶
| Area | Blind spot | Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Authority | Several directories appeared canonical without an authority map | Canonical map and generated classification |
| Freshness | Documents had no review deadline | Risk-based catalog dates and validation |
| AI safety | Imported prose could contain hostile instructions | Documentation trust boundary and research requirement |
| Examples | Syntax can pass while commands become behaviorally stale | Source parity now; sandboxed execution remains planned |
| Accessibility | Documentation accessibility lacked an explicit blocking gate | Important-domain 95% gate and future automated checks |
| Certification | Crosswalk language could be mistaken for compliance | Explicit claim-state vocabulary and evidence requirement |
| Maintainers | Ownership and review burden were not measurable | Catalog owners, debt reporting, and sustainability linkage |
| Ecosystem | Trust, maturity, support, and popularity could be conflated | Independent evidence dimensions remain mandatory |
| Operations | Runbooks could exist without rehearsal evidence | Important classification and evidence cadence |
| Roadmap | Attractive ideas could silently enter release scope | Evidence Funnel and binding dependency order retained |
Documentation Quality Model¶
The documentation model combines user-task quality, architectural completeness, software quality, secure development, AI risk, open-source security, and supply-chain evidence. External standards are informative crosswalks only unless independent assessment proves a scoped claim.
The generated health report scores authority, metadata, freshness, source parity, history separation, navigation, and governance. Critical controls require 100%, important controls 95%, and standard controls 90%; no composite score overrides a mandatory failure.
Prioritized Action Plan¶
| Priority | Action | Owner | Target | Acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | Keep canonical authority, catalog, roadmap, and maturity claims consistent | Maintainers | Every change | Governance and documentation validation |
| High | Add executable fixtures for supported CLI examples | Documentation and QA | Evidence Funnel discovery | Cross-platform deterministic example report |
| High | Add diagram parsing and architecture-link coverage | Architecture and Documentation | Evidence Funnel discovery | Diagram validation report |
| High | Rehearse operational runbooks and record expiry | Operations | Each applicable release | Runbook evidence and scorecard |
| Medium | Prototype bounded AI context packs | AI Governance | Research | Injection threat model and authority tests |
| Medium | Evaluate localization lifecycle | Documentation | Research | Source-authority and maintenance proposal |
| Low | Evaluate opt-in documentation task-success metrics | Product and Privacy | Research | Consent, minimization, and usefulness study |
Readiness Decision¶
Documentation governance is ready when generated catalog and health evidence validate, all canonical sources remain consistent, strict documentation checks pass, and no mandatory blocker is triggered. This report does not certify Forgevena against any external standard and does not authorize future runtime work.