APRF-RFC-0005 · accepted · MINOR · APRF v0.11.0
Demote reliability-continuity REL-M4 to recommended (REL-R3)
Demotes REL-M4→REL-R3 (process continuity options with owners); pre-release ID-removal exception.
Created 2026-08-01
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Status | accepted |
| Author(s) | StackRail (working-draft publisher) |
| Created | 2026-08-01 |
| SemVer impact | MINOR |
| Index summary | Demotes REL-M4→REL-R3 (process continuity options with owners); pre-release ID-removal exception. |
| Related | APRF-RFC-0002, APRF-RFC-0003 (pre-release M→R pattern) |
Problem
REL-M4 required every process marked critical-AI-dependent to have ≥1 documented continuity option with a named owner as a catalog mandatory (must). That over-weights process-level continuity documentation relative to production-blocking reliability gates already covered elsewhere:
| Stronger / adjacent control | What it already proves |
|---|---|
| REL-M2 | Critical journeys define degraded mode when AI is unavailable, with failover-test evidence |
| REL-M6 | Business-critical AI services have numeric RTO/RPO linked to tested restore/failover |
| REL-M5 | Backups include AI control-plane artifacts needed to restore service |
| REL-M7 / REL-M8 | Chaos and continuity drills for higher-tier / regulated workloads |
Documented continuity options with owners remain valuable operator maturity, but failing a catalog mandatory for missing a process register when journeys already degrade safely (REL-M2) and services have RTO/RPO (REL-M6) blocks assessments for the wrong reason. REL-M4 was never on Core or Regulated mandatoryCheckIds; keeping it as a catalog must still forces full-catalog and custom-gate consumers to treat documentation as a hard fail.
Proposal
- Demote REL-M4 → REL-R3 (recommended
shouldlanguage; hybrid detection viarepo-ai-continuity-optionsunchanged in substance). - Remove REL-M4 from the reliability-continuity mandatoryChecks list in
aprf-spec.json; add REL-R3 under recommendedChecks. - Do not change Core (38) or Regulated (54) profile counts — REL-M4 was never listed there.
- Pass condition unchanged in substance: 100% of critical-AI-dependent processes have ≥1 documented continuity option with a named owner; attest
measuredAt≤90d. - Keep REL-M1–M3, REL-M5–M8 as the reliability-continuity mandatory spine (timeouts, degraded mode, partial-failure outcome, backups, RTO/RPO, chaos/continuity drills as applicable).
Alternatives considered
- Soften passCondition but keep mandatory — rejected; still treats documentation coverage as a hard gate overlapping REL-M2/REL-M6.
- Demote in place (
gate: recommendedon REL-M4) — rejected; recommended Checks use the*-R*namespace. - Merge into REL-M2 — rejected; journey degraded-mode + failover tests are not the same as a process-level owned continuity-options register.
- Merge into REL-M6 — rejected; RTO/RPO service objectives are not process continuity-option docs with owners.
Compatibility
| Change | Impact |
|---|---|
| REL-M4 removed; REL-R3 added | Catalog mandatory −1; recommended +1; total Checks unchanged (178) |
| Core / Regulated mandatories | Unchanged (38 / 54) |
| Crosswalk / relatedRules | Remapped REL-M4 → REL-R3 |
| Collector / plugin | ai-continuity-options maps to REL-R3 |
SemVer: MINOR — M→R remapping while still on working-draft 0.10.x.
Pre-release exception: no tagged release yet — REL-M4 YAML removed rather than deprecated stub. Recorded in `id-gaps.md`. After first tagged release, future demotions must use deprecated + replacedBy.
Security considerations
No weakening of runtime degraded mode (REL-M2), partial-failure outcome tests (REL-M3), backups (REL-M5), or RTO/RPO (REL-M6). Residual risk is thinner process-level ownership documentation; mitigated by keeping REL-R3 high-severity recommended with hybrid collectors and by retaining REL-M2/REL-M6 as mandatories where applicable.
Open questions
- Should Regulated later re-include process continuity-option documentation as an additional mandatory once Level-5 ops maturity is ratified?
- Should REL-R3 require periodic review of owners (≤90d) beyond documentation freshness?
Checklist
- Problem and affected parties
- Proposed change stated
- SemVer impact justified
- Compatibility / deprecation plan
- Checks remain measurable
- Crosswalk impact noted
- Security / safety considered
- Open questions listed
Comment window: 14 days from Created (working-draft quorum applies). Interim contact: see /aprf/rfc/.
Source markdown: /aprf/rfc/0005-reliability-continuity-rel-m4-to-recommended.md