split-plan-governance-vs-substance

# 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 Codex/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:
1. the normative/content decision
2. 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

1. Review the latest provider artifacts and classify findings into:
   - substantive decision/content blockers
   - governance/enforcement/tooling blockers
2. If substantive blockers are mostly gone, stop rerunning the monolithic plan.
3. Write a short decision artifact explaining why the split is now higher leverage.
4. Draft Packet A from the stable decision/content material.
5. Draft Packet B from the validator/governance material.
6. 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.