ahmido/TenantAtlas
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects 1 Releases Wiki Activity

docs: realign product roadmap

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Ahmed Darrazi 2026-05-02 02:36:42 +02:00
parent 11247c1537
commit 15af199d4f
1 changed files with 0 additions and 53 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

53
docs/product/roadmap.md
View File

@ -41,59 +41,6 @@ ## Current Productization & Moat Priorities
| 11 | Private AI Execution Governance Foundation v1 / governed runtime follow-through | repo-verified, foundation-only, later scale-layer | Spec 248 is implemented as a governed foundation; visible runtime consumers and broader budget/result governance are still deferred | AI should remain governed foundation-first and provider-auditable before any visible feature island ships | manual promotion only for runtime follow-through |
| 12 | AI-assisted Review Summaries / Translation / Next Action Drafting | roadmap recommendation, later scale-layer, not-now | depends on governed AI, review truth, and customer-safe localization/productization | later visible AI lane after review, decision, artifact, and commercial maturity | not-now |
## Deep-Research Roadmap Alignment
This section is a deep-research-derived calibration layer. It sharpens roadmap language against current repo truth without reopening already-promoted specs or overstating sellability from foundations alone.
### Confirmed priorities
- Deep-Research-derived: Customer Review Workspace remains the primary sellability gap, but the repo already contains the foundational and productization specs. The roadmap priority is calmer customer-safe review consumption, not a second portal or a parallel reporting stack.
- Deep-Research-derived: Decision-centered operating remains the primary operator workflow gap. The repo already has governance inbox and convergence anchors, so the remaining roadmap work should narrow toward decision-register, ownership, closure, and approval semantics instead of launching more isolated admin surfaces.
- Deep-Research-derived: PSA/ITSM remains an integration lane, not a product-redefinition. The correct posture is handoff, reference continuity, and auditability rather than a TenantPilot-native helpdesk.
### Newly elevated gaps
- Deep-Research-derived: Governance Artifact Lifecycle & Retention v1 should be elevated into the now lane. Current repo truth covers lifecycle taxonomy, review-pack retention, and artifact-truth semantics in pieces, but not a unified governance-artifact lifecycle contract.
- Roadmap Recommendation: Enterprise Access Boundary & Support Access Governance v1 should exist as a narrow early access-governance slice built around support access request, reason, TTL, approval, banner, and exportable audit trail. Broad workspace SSO/OIDC/SCIM remains later.
### Reordered priorities
- Deep-Research-derived: Commercial lifecycle moves up. The commercial lane should be framed as SaaS trust, workspace read-only behavior, artifact access, and lifecycle semantics, not as a future billing engine.
- Deep-Research-derived: Cross-tenant compare and promotion remains important, but the roadmap should talk about lineage, approval, evidence, rollback references, and decision linkage before it talks about settings push.
- Deep-Research-derived: Auditor-ready delivery and broader governance packaging stay valuable, but they should follow calmer review consumption, decision routing, artifact lifecycle clarity, and commercial-state truth.
### Deferred / not-now themes
- Roadmap Recommendation: full operator-UI localization is not the v1 localization target; customer-facing glossary, review, pack, and notification surfaces come first.
- Roadmap Recommendation: broad workspace SSO/OIDC, SCIM, group-to-capability mapping, and automated provisioning stay out of P0 unless support-access risk turns acute.
- Roadmap Recommendation: advanced APIs/webhooks, visible AI runtime consumers, and AI-assisted drafting stay later scale layers.
### Productization vs. Foundation distinction
- Repo-verified foundations do not automatically mean sellable or customer-safe product slices.
- Specs 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 256, 258, 260, 262, 263, and current-branch 264 prove real foundations or prepared follow-through, but the roadmap should still distinguish `foundation-only` from `productization gap`.
- Stored reports, localization, commercial lifecycle, governed AI, and governance packaging all already have some repo truth. The open work is mainly calmer consumption, lifecycle semantics, and repeatable product delivery.
### Risks of admin-tool sprawl
- Deep-Research-derived: TenantPilot loses focus when every new operator concern gets its own top-level page instead of feeding review, decision, evidence, and governance-package flows.
- Deep-Research-derived: More admin surfaces do not close the core gap. Decision records, accepted-risk visibility, evidence lifecycle, customer-safe review consumption, and portfolio-safe workflow continuity do.
- Roadmap Recommendation: prefer decision-first routing, diagnostics-second disclosure, and evidence-third drilldown over raw technical dashboards or isolated remediation consoles.
## Deep-Research Anti-Patterns
Do not prioritize these themes ahead of the aligned now and next lanes.
- anti-pattern: generic M365 admin mirror
- anti-pattern: generic helpdesk or PSA replacement
- anti-pattern: device-action tooling without governance context
- anti-pattern: generic automation builder
- anti-pattern: raw technical dashboards as the primary product surface
- anti-pattern: AI copilot islands without AI governance
- anti-pattern: broad multi-cloud expansion before Microsoft governance is productized
- anti-pattern: eDiscovery or broad GRC-suite clone
- anti-pattern: a new top-level page for every technical state or exception
Explicit anti-sprawl boundaries for this priority set:
- Do not reopen risk acceptance as a broad new foundation theme; reuse the existing exception/risk-acceptance workflow and productize its customer-safe accountability trail.