Goon-Strat

Program Execution Plan (Team of 6)

1. Mission Context

Build a specification-compliant, interoperable CCSDS 235.1-W-0.4 reference implementation by 31 Aug 2026, optimized for:

Protocol correctness first
Measurable interoperability
Sub-1 ms encode/decode and frame processing
Sub-50 KB session overhead
Reproducibility and strong documentation

1.1 Strategic Path Rationale

The chosen path prioritizes correctness first because Protocol Correctness has the largest scoring weight (40 points).
Performance work starts early (not late) because deterministic latency and memory behavior require architectural choices, not only final optimization.
Interoperability rehearsals are scheduled before final submission to avoid discovering wire-format mismatches when schedule slack is gone.

1.2 Language and Stack Recommendation

Primary recommendation:

Rust for protocol core and session/state components.

Why Rust is recommended:

Deterministic memory behavior without GC pauses supports latency and memory targets.
Strong type system and ownership model reduce classes of runtime defects in stateful protocol code.
Zero-cost abstractions allow clean architecture without paying runtime penalties in hot paths.
Excellent test tooling (cargo test, property testing, benchmark ecosystem) supports evidence-heavy scoring categories.

Fallback recommendation:

C++20 if team has deeper C++ performance expertise and can enforce strict memory discipline.

Why fallback is second choice:

C++ can match performance but typically needs more process rigor to avoid memory safety regressions during rapid iteration.

Not recommended for protocol hot path:

GC/interpreted stacks for frame/SPDU critical path.

Why not:

Non-deterministic pauses and allocator behavior can complicate under-1 ms guarantees and long-duration stress reliability.

2. Team Operating Model

Role placeholders:

Engineer A: Systems/Protocol Lead
Engineer B: V&V and Performance Lead
Engineer C: Interoperability and Operations Lead
Developer A: Core Protocol Developer
Developer B: Infrastructure/Tooling Developer
Developer C: Integration and Automation Developer

Responsibility Split

Engineer A
- Owns interpretation of CCSDS sections and decision log
- Owns state machine correctness and interface definitions
- Co-owns workshop and interoperability readiness
Engineer B
- Owns test strategy, coverage model, benchmark design
- Owns conformance matrix and PICS draft
- Co-owns risk and failure-mode analysis
Engineer C
- Owns workshop interoperability operations and external exchange readiness
- Owns runbook quality, operator workflows, and incident triage process
- Co-owns release readiness and submission packaging checks
Developer A
- Owns SPDU, COP-P core implementation, and parser rigor
- Owns serialization/deserialization correctness and byte order utilities
Developer B
- Owns frame layer implementation, physical channel adapters, CI/CD, reproducible builds, docs tooling
Developer C
- Owns integration harnesses, failure-injection tooling, and regression automation
- Owns benchmark orchestration, artifact generation tooling, and verification scripts

3. Cadence and Governance

Planning: weekly Monday 45 minutes
Daily sync: 15 minutes
Spec alignment review: twice weekly (Engineer A leads)
Test and benchmark review: weekly (Engineer B leads)
Interoperability rehearsal review: weekly (Engineer C leads)
Gateway readiness review: 48 hours before each gateway close
Decision records: all non-trivial choices captured in ADR format

Why this cadence:

Short daily syncs keep integration risk low without reducing implementation time.
Twice-weekly spec reviews prevent drifting interpretations from becoming expensive rework.
ADR discipline captures rationale, enabling faster review and conformance justification.

4. Quality Gates (apply to every phase)

No merge without tests for changed behavior
No open severity-1 bug older than 48 hours
Coverage target trendline: >= 90% unit coverage by Gateway 8
Deterministic behavior required in core protocol tests
Public interfaces documented before phase close

Why these gates:

They prevent hidden quality debt from crossing gateways.
They tie day-to-day development decisions directly to judged outcomes (correctness, conformance, reproducibility).

5. Branching and Release Strategy

main: releasable baseline
develop: integration branch
feature/<gateway>-<topic> branches
Release tags:
- g0-arch, g1-spdu, g2-copp, g3-frame, g4-physical, g5-state, g6-session, g7-int, g8-conf, g9-interop, g10-docs

6. Risk Register (initial)

Ambiguity in spec interpretation
- Mitigation: formal decision log + test vectors tied to sections
Performance regressions near final phase
- Mitigation: benchmark in CI from Gateway 1 onward
Interoperability surprises
- Mitigation: workshop artifact generation and decode replay tests
Over-focus on implementation, under-focus on docs
- Mitigation: documentation treated as parallel workstream every phase

7. Deliverable Control Board

Track each gateway with:

Scope committed
Scope delivered
Validation checklist pass/fail
Blockers and mitigations
Evidence links (tests, benchmarks, reports)

8. Score Maximization Strategy

40 points correctness: strict section-to-test traceability
25 points testing/conformance: build conformance matrix early
15 points interoperability: artifact rehearsals and exchange drills
10 points performance: continuous microbench and stress profiles
10 points documentation: complete API, user, architecture docs with runnable examples

Why this score strategy works:

It maps engineering effort to scoring weights, ensuring team time is spent where points are concentrated.
It reduces the risk of over-investing in low-weight categories before high-weight mandatory evidence is stable.

9. Immediate Next 7 Days (from upcoming meeting)

Day 1-2: finalize stack, architecture boundaries, repository scaffolding
Day 3-4: define SPDU data model and endian utility API
Day 5: bring up test harness with golden vectors
Day 6: set benchmark harness and memory measurement method
Day 7: Gateway 0 readiness review and adjustments

Rationale for the first 7 days:

Days 1-2 establish constraints first so implementation choices remain consistent under pressure.
Days 3-4 define data model and byte-order contract early because these choices affect every downstream gateway.
Days 5-6 front-load verification infrastructure so performance and correctness regressions are visible immediately.
Day 7 institutionalizes review before coding velocity increases, reducing avoidable architecture churn.

10. Why This Gateway Order

Gateway 0 before all others: architecture and test harness are forcing functions for disciplined execution.
Gateway 1 before Gateway 2: COP-P correctness depends on trusted SPDU encode/decode semantics.
Gateway 2 before Gateway 3: frame behavior must encapsulate already-correct protocol data units.
Workshop buffer before session control: external interoperability confidence should be established before introducing higher-level session complexity.
Gateways 7-10 grouped at end but developed continuously: final phase is for hardening and evidence consolidation, not first-time creation.

⬆️ Back to Top ⬆️

Back Page