{
  "schema": "longtermcapabilities-capabilities/v2",
  "version": "1.48.0",
  "releaseId": "lts-1.48.0-first-run-admin-bootstrap",
  "generated": "2026-07-25T13:00:00Z",
  "capabilities": [
    {
      "id": "legacy-modernization",
      "name": "Legacy system rescue and modernization",
      "path": "/capabilities/#legacy-modernization",
      "audiences": [
        "enterprise",
        "government",
        "partner"
      ],
      "operationalProblem": "A long-lived Microsoft application still runs important work, but unsupported components, tightly coupled data logic, and undocumented dependencies make every change risky.",
      "systemContext": [
        ".NET Framework and modern .NET",
        "ASP.NET, Web Forms, MVC, Web API, and aging Microsoft application patterns",
        "SQL Server, T-SQL, stored procedures, jobs, reports, and integration surfaces",
        "Windows-hosted, Azure-connected, and hybrid business systems"
      ],
      "scopeOfWork": [
        "Current-state application, data, integration, and dependency inventory",
        "Unsupported-component and maintainability risk analysis",
        "Characterization-test and incremental modernization planning",
        "Target-state boundaries, service seams, and reversible sequencing"
      ],
      "outputs": [
        "Current-state architecture map",
        "Technical debt and unsupported-component inventory",
        "Modernization options and sequence",
        "Parity and rollback plan",
        "Decision and risk register"
      ],
      "decisionEnabled": "Stabilize, incrementally modernize, replace a bounded component, or defer with known risk.",
      "principalResponsibilities": [
        "Lead discovery and architecture analysis",
        "Trace representative behavior across application and data boundaries",
        "Define target seams, parity expectations, and decision records",
        "Present the tradeoffs directly to technical and executive owners"
      ],
      "clientResponsibilities": [
        "Provide technical and domain owners",
        "Provide approved access to representative system evidence",
        "Identify continuity constraints and known failures",
        "Resolve disputed business behavior"
      ],
      "exclusions": [
        "Unlimited code review",
        "Full rewrite by default",
        "Guaranteed discovery of every hidden dependency",
        "Production operations outside a separate scope"
      ],
      "relatedServices": [
        "dotnet-sql-modernization"
      ],
      "relatedEvidence": [
        "legacy-modernization-without-behavioral-drift",
        "key-personnel-enterprise-systems"
      ],
      "riskReduced": "Unplanned behavioral change, rewrite uncertainty, brittle cutovers, and dependency surprises.",
      "slug": "legacy-modernization",
      "summary": "A long-lived Microsoft application still runs important work, but unsupported components, tightly coupled data logic, and undocumented dependencies make every change risky.",
      "topics": [
        "modernization",
        ".NET",
        "SQL Server",
        "continuity"
      ],
      "relatedResources": [
        "modernization-risk-review",
        "legacy-modernization-evidence-inventory"
      ],
      "relatedInsights": [
        "modernize-dotnet-sql-without-business-logic-drift"
      ],
      "publishedDate": "2026-07-21",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25",
      "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel",
      "status": "published"
    },
    {
      "id": "business-logic-preservation",
      "name": "Business logic preservation and parity validation",
      "path": "/capabilities/#business-logic-preservation",
      "audiences": [
        "enterprise",
        "government",
        "partner"
      ],
      "operationalProblem": "Important behavior is distributed across code, stored procedures, reports, configuration, exception handling, and human workarounds - and no single source fully defines intent.",
      "systemContext": [
        "Claims, contracts, tax, logistics, routing, approvals, reporting, and other rule-heavy workflows",
        "Stored-procedure-heavy systems and long-lived line-of-business applications",
        "Modernization programs where equivalent behavior matters more than technology parity"
      ],
      "scopeOfWork": [
        "Behavior discovery and source tracing",
        "Scenario inventory and characterization testing",
        "Old-versus-new output comparison",
        "Data reconciliation and exception analysis",
        "Known, unknown, disputed, intentional, and accidental change classification"
      ],
      "outputs": [
        "Business-rule map",
        "Parity scenario catalog",
        "Comparison and reconciliation report",
        "Unknown and disputed behavior register",
        "Domain-owner review record"
      ],
      "decisionEnabled": "Which behavior must remain, which change is intentional, and whether a release is acceptably equivalent.",
      "principalResponsibilities": [
        "Design the evidence model and comparison method",
        "Trace source support for behavior claims",
        "Separate observed behavior from assumed intent",
        "Facilitate domain-owner review without inventing certainty"
      ],
      "clientResponsibilities": [
        "Provide representative scenarios and domain reviewers",
        "Identify regulatory, financial, or operational consequences",
        "Approve intentional changes and unresolved exceptions",
        "Retain final business authority"
      ],
      "exclusions": [
        "A claim that all behavior can be discovered",
        "Replacement of domain-owner judgment",
        "Legal interpretation of business rules",
        "Guaranteed zero regression"
      ],
      "relatedServices": [
        "dotnet-sql-modernization"
      ],
      "relatedEvidence": [
        "legacy-modernization-without-behavioral-drift"
      ],
      "riskReduced": "Silent calculation, approval, permission, report, and exception-handling drift.",
      "slug": "business-logic-preservation",
      "summary": "Important behavior is distributed across code, stored procedures, reports, configuration, exception handling, and human workarounds - and no single source fully defines intent.",
      "topics": [
        "parity",
        "business logic",
        "testing",
        "data reconciliation"
      ],
      "relatedResources": [
        "legacy-modernization-evidence-inventory",
        "modernization-risk-review"
      ],
      "relatedInsights": [
        "modernize-dotnet-sql-without-business-logic-drift"
      ],
      "publishedDate": "2026-07-21",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25",
      "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel",
      "status": "published"
    },
    {
      "id": "application-data-integration",
      "name": "Application, API, integration, and data architecture",
      "path": "/capabilities/#application-data-integration",
      "audiences": [
        "enterprise",
        "government",
        "partner"
      ],
      "operationalProblem": "Teams cannot safely change or integrate systems because ownership, service boundaries, data flows, interface contracts, failure behavior, and vendor dependencies are unclear.",
      "systemContext": [
        "Microsoft application estates",
        "API-first and service-oriented systems",
        "SQL Server and mixed data platforms",
        "Vendor integrations, document workflows, batch jobs, and event-driven processes"
      ],
      "scopeOfWork": [
        "Current-state and target-state mapping",
        "Service and data ownership boundaries",
        "Access paths and interface contracts",
        "Failure handling, observability, and rollback design",
        "Vendor and platform dependency review",
        "Technical decision records"
      ],
      "outputs": [
        "Architecture and data-flow diagrams",
        "Interface and ownership matrix",
        "Dependency and failure map",
        "Target-state options",
        "Technical decision records and open questions"
      ],
      "decisionEnabled": "Where to place boundaries, which dependencies to retain, and how to integrate without widening operational risk.",
      "principalResponsibilities": [
        "Lead architecture discovery and option analysis",
        "Translate business workflow into explicit system boundaries",
        "Document assumptions, decisions, and consequences",
        "Review vendor or internal proposals independently"
      ],
      "clientResponsibilities": [
        "Provide application, data, security, and workflow owners",
        "Provide approved architecture and operational evidence",
        "Identify non-negotiable platform and support constraints",
        "Approve ownership and interface decisions"
      ],
      "exclusions": [
        "Network penetration testing",
        "Cloud account administration",
        "Vendor contracting authority",
        "Unlimited implementation"
      ],
      "relatedServices": [
        "dotnet-sql-modernization",
        "architecture-reliability-office",
        "joint-discovery-workshop"
      ],
      "relatedEvidence": [
        "key-personnel-enterprise-systems",
        "governed-knowledge-system"
      ],
      "riskReduced": "Coupling, ambiguous ownership, integration failure, inaccessible evidence, and vendor-driven architecture.",
      "slug": "application-data-integration",
      "summary": "Teams cannot safely change or integrate systems because ownership, service boundaries, data flows, interface contracts, failure behavior, and vendor dependencies are unclear.",
      "topics": [
        "architecture",
        "APIs",
        "data ownership",
        "integration"
      ],
      "relatedResources": [
        "technical-vendor-review-checklist",
        "enterprise-proposal-template"
      ],
      "relatedInsights": [
        "reusable-capability-not-isolated-ai-pilots",
        "durable-ai-systems-memory-state-retries-evidence"
      ],
      "publishedDate": "2026-07-21",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25",
      "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel",
      "status": "published"
    },
    {
      "id": "ai-production-evaluation",
      "name": "AI production readiness and evaluation",
      "path": "/capabilities/#ai-production-evaluation",
      "audiences": [
        "enterprise",
        "government",
        "partner"
      ],
      "operationalProblem": "An AI pilot appears useful, but the team cannot explain representative performance, access failures, cost, latency, refusal behavior, human review, or release thresholds.",
      "systemContext": [
        "RAG systems, copilots, AI reviewers, agent-assisted workflows, and AI-enabled product features",
        "Internal knowledge systems and customer-facing software",
        "Systems using commercial or local language models"
      ],
      "scopeOfWork": [
        "Use-case and system inventory",
        "Golden, edge, adversarial, refusal, and access cases",
        "Retrieval, grounding, citation, cost, latency, and workflow evaluation",
        "Versioned regression execution",
        "Release scorecards and operational response planning"
      ],
      "outputs": [
        "Evaluation dataset",
        "Baseline and regression results",
        "Failure taxonomy",
        "Release scorecard",
        "Risk and response runbook",
        "System card"
      ],
      "decisionEnabled": "Whether the workload should proceed, narrow, remediate, remain in pilot, or stop.",
      "principalResponsibilities": [
        "Design representative evidence with domain reviewers",
        "Separate failure categories and unknowns",
        "Define review and release criteria",
        "Connect engineering results to leadership and procurement evidence"
      ],
      "clientResponsibilities": [
        "Provide domain reviewers and approved environments",
        "Fund model and platform usage",
        "Retain production release authority",
        "Implement core product remediation unless separately scoped"
      ],
      "exclusions": [
        "Formal AI audit or certification",
        "Zero-hallucination guarantee",
        "24/7 monitoring",
        "Legal or regulatory opinion"
      ],
      "relatedServices": [
        "ai-production-readiness",
        "ai-evaluation-release-gates"
      ],
      "relatedEvidence": [
        "ai-evaluation-blocked-action",
        "ai-documentation-review"
      ],
      "riskReduced": "Unmeasured failures, weak release decisions, access leakage, unsupported claims, and unreliable change comparison.",
      "slug": "ai-production-evaluation",
      "summary": "An AI pilot appears useful, but the team cannot explain representative performance, access failures, cost, latency, refusal behavior, human review, or release thresholds.",
      "topics": [
        "AI evaluation",
        "release gates",
        "RAG",
        "reliability"
      ],
      "relatedResources": [
        "ai-production-readiness-evidence-pack",
        "enterprise-ai-procurement-evidence-checklist"
      ],
      "relatedInsights": [
        "ai-demo-to-defensible-release-decision",
        "durable-ai-systems-memory-state-retries-evidence"
      ],
      "publishedDate": "2026-07-21",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25",
      "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel",
      "status": "published"
    },
    {
      "id": "human-reviewed-ai",
      "name": "Human-reviewed AI workflow design",
      "path": "/capabilities/#human-reviewed-ai",
      "audiences": [
        "enterprise",
        "government",
        "partner"
      ],
      "operationalProblem": "AI output can influence consequential work without clear authority, named reviewers, refusal behavior, escalation, or separation between approval and execution.",
      "systemContext": [
        "Document and case review",
        "Claims, contracts, support, compliance, knowledge, and exception workflows",
        "AI-assisted proposals, recommendations, drafts, and classifications"
      ],
      "scopeOfWork": [
        "Proposed-versus-executed action separation",
        "Named reviewer roles and authority",
        "Approval, rejection, editing, blocking, and escalation design",
        "Segregation of approval and execution",
        "Override, refusal, and audit-trail requirements",
        "Least-authority design"
      ],
      "outputs": [
        "Authority and review matrix",
        "Workflow and escalation diagram",
        "Reviewer interface requirements",
        "Override and refusal log design",
        "Acceptance and blocked-action criteria"
      ],
      "decisionEnabled": "Which actions AI may propose, what a human must approve, and what the system must refuse or escalate.",
      "principalResponsibilities": [
        "Map authority and consequence",
        "Design review and evidence paths",
        "Define least-authority and blocked-action controls",
        "Document unresolved ownership or policy questions"
      ],
      "clientResponsibilities": [
        "Name accountable reviewers and decision owners",
        "Define operational consequences and escalation paths",
        "Retain final approval and execution authority",
        "Train and support end users"
      ],
      "exclusions": [
        "Autonomous production authority by default",
        "Replacement of accountable human roles",
        "Formal legal or policy approval",
        "Guarantee that reviewers will catch every error"
      ],
      "relatedServices": [
        "ai-production-readiness",
        "ai-evaluation-release-gates"
      ],
      "relatedEvidence": [
        "ai-evaluation-blocked-action",
        "governed-knowledge-system"
      ],
      "riskReduced": "Unclear accountability, irreversible automation, hidden overrides, and unsupported downstream action.",
      "slug": "human-reviewed-ai",
      "summary": "AI output can influence consequential work without clear authority, named reviewers, refusal behavior, escalation, or separation between approval and execution.",
      "topics": [
        "human authority",
        "approval",
        "least authority",
        "audit trail"
      ],
      "relatedResources": [
        "human-reviewed-ai-workflow-checklist",
        "human-capability-safeguards-ai-work"
      ],
      "relatedInsights": [
        "human-reviewed-ai-proposal-approval-execution",
        "ai-cognitive-scaffolding-human-capability"
      ],
      "publishedDate": "2026-07-21",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25",
      "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel",
      "status": "published"
    },
    {
      "id": "technical-evidence-procurement",
      "name": "Technical evidence and procurement support",
      "path": "/capabilities/#technical-evidence-procurement",
      "audiences": [
        "enterprise",
        "government",
        "partner"
      ],
      "operationalProblem": "Engineering reality is not organized into artifacts that leadership, security, procurement, legal, partners, or evaluators can inspect and reuse.",
      "systemContext": [
        "Enterprise vendor reviews",
        "Government market research and prime-contractor qualification",
        "AI and modernization decisions",
        "Security questionnaires and architecture reviews"
      ],
      "scopeOfWork": [
        "System cards and architecture summaries",
        "Data-flow and access-boundary diagrams",
        "Technical decision logs and risk registers",
        "Technical response libraries",
        "Acceptance criteria and evidence inventories",
        "Public-safe versus private evidence boundaries"
      ],
      "outputs": [
        "Procurement-ready technical evidence package",
        "Questionnaire response library",
        "Architecture and data-flow summary",
        "Risk and decision register",
        "Evidence inventory and request map"
      ],
      "decisionEnabled": "Whether a buyer, partner, or reviewer has enough technical evidence to continue qualification, approve the next phase, or ask targeted questions.",
      "principalResponsibilities": [
        "Translate system evidence into accurate review artifacts",
        "Preserve source support and limitations",
        "Separate technical facts from legal or certification conclusions",
        "Maintain public-safe and private evidence boundaries"
      ],
      "clientResponsibilities": [
        "Provide authoritative technical owners and source evidence",
        "Approve public and private disclosure boundaries",
        "Route legal and formal assurance questions to qualified parties",
        "Keep evidence current after handoff"
      ],
      "exclusions": [
        "Legal advice",
        "Formal assurance, certification, or attestation",
        "Guarantee of procurement approval or contract award",
        "Fabrication of missing identifiers, metrics, or status"
      ],
      "relatedServices": [
        "ai-production-readiness",
        "joint-discovery-workshop",
        "architecture-reliability-office"
      ],
      "relatedEvidence": [
        "ai-documentation-review",
        "key-personnel-enterprise-systems"
      ],
      "riskReduced": "Procurement stalls, inconsistent answers, unsupported claims, and evidence disconnected from the system.",
      "slug": "technical-evidence-procurement",
      "summary": "Engineering reality is not organized into artifacts that leadership, security, procurement, legal, partners, or evaluators can inspect and reuse.",
      "topics": [
        "technical evidence",
        "procurement",
        "system cards",
        "risk records"
      ],
      "relatedResources": [
        "enterprise-ai-procurement-evidence-checklist",
        "long-term-capability-review"
      ],
      "relatedInsights": [
        "ai-demo-to-defensible-release-decision",
        "reusable-capability-not-isolated-ai-pilots"
      ],
      "publishedDate": "2026-07-21",
      "lastReviewed": "2026-07-25",
      "contentOwner": "Mike Kappel",
      "status": "published"
    }
  ]
}