# Lessons Learned: Roadmap Prioritization Incident

**Date:** 2025-12-03
**Incident ID:** ROADMAP-2025-12-03-001
**Project:** integration-test-parallelization
**Status:** Root Cause Analysis Complete

---

## 1. Executive Summary

### What Happened

During roadmap creation for "integration test parallelization," the solution-architect and software-crafter agents produced a comprehensive 34-step roadmap focused on **SISTER credential isolation** - a solution to enable parallel execution of tests that depend on an external system (SISTER portal) with a single-session-per-credential constraint.

**The Problem:** This roadmap optimized for the **wrong bottleneck**.

| Test Tier | Execution Time | SISTER Dependency | Actual Opportunity |
|-----------|---------------|-------------------|-------------------|
| Tier 2 Integration Tests | **8m 52s** | ~20% of tests | **HIGH** - 80% could parallelize immediately |
| Tier 3 E2E Tests | **3m 48s** | ~100% of tests | MEDIUM - requires credential isolation |

The agents spent significant effort designing a sophisticated credential pool system for the smaller bottleneck (3m 48s) while ignoring that 80% of the larger bottleneck (8m 52s) required no special handling at all.

### Impact

- **Wasted Effort:** 34-step roadmap addressing secondary concern
- **Missed Quick Win:** Simple parallelization of non-SISTER integration tests could have delivered immediate value
- **Complexity Introduced:** Sophisticated credential pooling adds maintenance burden
- **Opportunity Cost:** Time spent on wrong problem delays actual optimization

### Key Lesson

**MEASURE BEFORE YOU PLAN.** No roadmap should be created without quantitative data about the problem being solved. A 30-minute profiling session would have revealed the obvious priority.

---

## 2. Detailed Root Cause Analysis

### Root Cause 1: Missing "Measure Before Plan" Principle

**Pattern:** Agents proceeded to solution design without quantitative problem analysis.

**Evidence from this incident:**
- Roadmap Phase 0 (acceptance criteria) defined targets like "< 120 seconds" without first measuring current baseline
- Phase 0-03 "Establish baseline metrics" was included BUT placed AFTER acceptance criteria definition
- No timing data appeared in roadmap until reviewer feedback forced the question
- The roadmap's `research_findings` section categorized tests by **type** (SISTER-dependent vs not) but NOT by **execution time**

**How it manifested:**
```yaml
# From roadmap.yaml lines 55-73
outer_loop:
  acceptance_criteria:
    - id: "AC-01"
      target: "Integration tests complete in < 120 seconds"
      current_baseline: "Unmeasured - need to establish baseline first"  # RED FLAG
```

The agents set a target (< 120 seconds) without knowing:
1. What the current execution time actually was
2. Which tests contributed most to that time
3. Whether the target was achievable with the proposed approach

**Cognitive failure:** The agents treated "measuring the problem" as a step to validate their solution rather than a prerequisite to choosing a solution.

---

### Root Cause 2: Constraint Salience Bias

**Pattern:** User-mentioned constraints dominated agent attention, overshadowing larger opportunities.

**Evidence from this incident:**
- User mentioned "SISTER portal single-session constraint" in the problem statement
- This constraint became the **central organizing principle** of the entire roadmap
- Roadmap title: "Integration Test Parallelization **with Credential Isolation**"
- 6 of 7 phases focused on credential isolation infrastructure

**How it manifested:**

The SISTER constraint was technically accurate but applied to a **minority of tests**:
```yaml
# From roadmap.yaml lines 77-132
research_findings:
  integration_test_categories:
    tier_2_integration:
      - category: "Integration.Infrastructure.Communication"
        sister_dependency: false       # <-- IGNORED
        parallelization_safe: true     # <-- IGNORED
      - category: "Integration.Infrastructure.Persistence"
        sister_dependency: false       # <-- IGNORED
        parallelization_safe: true     # <-- IGNORED
      - category: "Integration.Services"
        sister_dependency: true        # <-- ALL ATTENTION HERE
```

The agents correctly identified that most Tier 2 tests had NO SISTER dependency (`parallelization_safe: true`), yet the entire roadmap architecture was built around credential isolation.

**Cognitive failure:** The explicitly stated constraint (SISTER) became an anchor that biased all subsequent analysis toward solving that specific problem, even when data showed it was the smaller concern.

---

### Root Cause 3: Qualitative Over Quantitative Research

**Pattern:** Test categorization by type/dependency rather than by execution time impact.

**Evidence from this incident:**
- Research phase (Phase 1) asked "Categorize tests by SISTER dependency"
- Research phase asked "Identify long-running tests" (Step 01-03) BUT this came AFTER the architecture was already designed around credential isolation
- No step asked "What percentage of total execution time is SISTER-dependent?"

**How it manifested:**

The roadmap's research was extensive but qualitative:
```yaml
# From roadmap.yaml Phase 1 steps
steps:
  - id: "01-01"
    name: "Categorize tests by SISTER dependency"  # Type-based
  - id: "01-02"
    name: "Analyze current credential usage patterns"  # Type-based
  - id: "01-03"
    name: "Identify long-running tests"  # Time-based BUT ordered THIRD
```

By the time Step 01-03 (timing analysis) would execute, the architecture was already committed to credential isolation. The timing analysis was positioned as a prioritization step WITHIN the credential isolation solution, not as a validation step for WHETHER credential isolation was the right approach.

**Cognitive failure:** Research was designed to IMPLEMENT a predetermined solution rather than to DISCOVER the right solution.

---

### Root Cause 4: Completion Bias

**Pattern:** Agents optimized for delivering a comprehensive, impressive deliverable rather than the correct solution.

**Evidence from this incident:**
- 34-step roadmap with extensive detail
- Sophisticated abstractions (ITestCredentialPool, ICredentialLease, CredentialLease)
- Comprehensive reviews (1300+ lines of review feedback)
- Multiple phases following ATDD/TDD methodology perfectly

**How it manifested:**

The roadmap was technically excellent:
```yaml
# From roadmap.yaml - impressive technical detail
implementation:
  interface_name: "ITestCredentialPool"
  methods:
    - "Task<ICredentialLease> AcquireCredentialAsync(string testId, TimeSpan timeout)"
    - "void ReleaseCredential(ICredentialLease lease)"
```

But this sophistication was directed at the wrong problem. A simpler approach (just enable parallelization for non-SISTER tests) would have delivered 80% of the value with 10% of the complexity.

**Cognitive failure:** The agents measured success by deliverable completeness rather than by problem-solution fit.

---

### Root Cause 5: Missing "Simplest Solution First" Heuristic

**Pattern:** No systematic check for easier alternatives before complex solutions.

**Evidence from this incident:**
- No phase asked "What's the simplest change that could improve execution time?"
- No step evaluated "Can we just enable xUnit parallelization for non-SISTER tests?"
- The credential pool solution required 7 phases; enabling parallelization for safe tests requires 1 configuration change

**How it manifested:**

The simplest solution was implicit in the research but never proposed:
```yaml
# Buried in research findings
- category: "Integration.Infrastructure.Persistence"
  parallelization_safe: true  # Just enable parallelization!
```

The data showed that ~80% of Tier 2 tests could parallelize immediately with **zero code changes** - just xUnit configuration. This was never proposed as an alternative or first step.

**Cognitive failure:** Complex solutions were assumed necessary without validating that simpler alternatives were insufficient.

---

## 3. Affected Components

### Agent Definitions Requiring Updates

| Agent | Current Behavior | Required Change |
|-------|-----------------|-----------------|
| `solution-architect` | Proceeds to architecture design without quantitative validation | Add "Measurement Gate" requiring timing data before design |
| `software-crafter` | Accepts architecture and implements | Add "Simplest Solution Check" before complex implementation |
| `researcher` (if separate) | Categorizes by type | Require quantitative impact analysis |

### Slash Commands Requiring Updates

| Command | Current Behavior | Required Change |
|---------|-----------------|-----------------|
| `/nw:roadmap` | Creates comprehensive roadmap | Add "Pre-Planning Measurement Gate" |
| `/nw:split` | Splits roadmap into tasks | Validate measurement data exists |
| `/nw:review` | Reviews for completeness | Add "Priority Validation" dimension |

### New Validation Gates Needed

1. **Pre-Planning Measurement Gate**
   - BLOCKS roadmap creation until baseline metrics exist
   - Requires timing breakdown showing problem distribution

2. **Constraint Prioritization Gate**
   - Requires explicit ranking of constraints by impact
   - Forces consideration of constraint-free alternatives

3. **Simplest Solution Gate**
   - Requires documenting WHY simple solutions are insufficient
   - Must propose and reject simple alternatives explicitly

4. **Review Dimension: Priority Validation**
   - Reviewer must validate roadmap addresses highest-impact problem
   - Reviewer must verify alternatives were considered

---

## 4. Recommended Improvements

### 4.1 Pre-Planning Measurement Gate

**What:** Mandatory measurement step that BLOCKS roadmap creation.

**Where:** Agent definitions for `solution-architect` and slash command `/nw:roadmap`

**How - Agent Definition Addition:**

Add to `solution-architect` agent's `persona.core_principles`:

```yaml
core_principles:
  # ... existing principles ...

  - name: "Measure Before Plan"
    description: "NEVER create a roadmap without quantitative baseline data"
    enforcement: "BLOCKING"
    required_data:
      - execution_time_breakdown: "Time spent per component/test category"
      - impact_ranking: "Components ranked by time contribution"
      - target_validation: "Evidence that proposed target is achievable"
    validation_prompt: |
      Before proceeding with roadmap creation, verify:
      1. Do I have timing data showing WHERE time is spent?
      2. Do I know which component contributes MOST to the problem?
      3. Can I prove the proposed target is achievable with my approach?

      If ANY answer is NO, STOP and request measurement data first.
```

**How - Slash Command Addition:**

Add to `/nw:roadmap` command template:

```markdown
## Pre-Planning Measurement Gate (MANDATORY)

Before creating this roadmap, provide the following measurements:

### Baseline Metrics (REQUIRED)
- [ ] Current total execution time: ___ seconds
- [ ] Execution time breakdown by component:
  | Component | Time | % of Total |
  |-----------|------|------------|
  | ... | ... | ... |
- [ ] Largest bottleneck identified: ___
- [ ] Second largest bottleneck: ___

### Target Validation (REQUIRED)
- [ ] Proposed target: ___ seconds
- [ ] Theoretical speedup with approach: ___x
- [ ] Calculation showing target is achievable: ___

### Gate Status
- [ ] PASSED: Measurements complete, proceed with roadmap
- [ ] BLOCKED: Missing measurements, cannot proceed

**If BLOCKED, the next step is measurement, NOT roadmap creation.**
```

**Why:** This gate would have immediately revealed that:
1. Tier 2 integration tests (8m 52s) > Tier 3 E2E tests (3m 48s)
2. 80% of Tier 2 tests have no SISTER dependency
3. Simple parallelization should be attempted first

---

### 4.2 Constraint Prioritization Framework

**What:** Systematic framework to prevent user-mentioned constraints from dominating.

**Where:** Agent definitions for `solution-architect`, `software-crafter`

**How - Agent Definition Addition:**

Add to `solution-architect` agent's `pipeline` section:

```yaml
pipeline:
  constraint_analysis:
    inputs: [user_requirements, constraints_mentioned]
    outputs: [prioritized_constraints, impact_assessment]

    mandatory_questions:
      - "What percentage of the problem is affected by this constraint?"
      - "What could be achieved WITHOUT addressing this constraint?"
      - "Is this constraint the PRIMARY bottleneck or a SECONDARY concern?"

    constraint_prioritization_template: |
      ## Constraint Impact Analysis

      | Constraint | Mentioned By | % of Problem Affected | Priority |
      |------------|--------------|----------------------|----------|
      | {constraint_1} | {source} | {percentage} | {HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW} |

      ### Constraint-Free Baseline
      If we ignored all constraints, what could we achieve?
      - Maximum theoretical improvement: ___
      - Tests/components that can proceed without constraints: ___

      ### Recommendation
      Based on impact analysis:
      - Primary focus should be: ___
      - Secondary focus: ___
      - Constraint {X} affects only {Y}% and should NOT dominate architecture
```

**Why:** This framework would have revealed:
- SISTER constraint affects ~20% of Tier 2 tests
- 80% of Tier 2 tests can parallelize WITHOUT addressing SISTER
- SISTER should be Phase 2, not the organizing principle

---

### 4.3 "Simplest Solution First" Heuristic

**What:** Mandatory consideration of simple alternatives before complex solutions.

**Where:** Agent definitions for `solution-architect`, `software-crafter`, `/nw:roadmap` command

**How - Agent Definition Addition:**

Add to `solution-architect` agent's `quality_gates`:

```yaml
quality_gates:
  simplest_solution_check:
    description: "Verify complex solutions are justified"
    trigger: "Before proposing multi-phase implementation"

    mandatory_alternatives:
      - "Configuration-only change (no code)"
      - "Single-file change (minimal code)"
      - "Existing tool/library solution"

    documentation_required:
      alternative_1:
        description: "Simplest possible approach"
        why_insufficient: "Specific reason this doesn't work"
        evidence: "Data/test showing insufficiency"
      alternative_2:
        description: "Next simplest approach"
        why_insufficient: "Specific reason this doesn't work"
        evidence: "Data/test showing insufficiency"

    validation_prompt: |
      Before proposing a multi-phase solution, document:

      ## Rejected Simple Alternatives

      ### Alternative 1: [Simplest possible approach]
      - What: ___
      - Why insufficient: ___
      - Evidence: ___

      ### Alternative 2: [Next simplest]
      - What: ___
      - Why insufficient: ___
      - Evidence: ___

      ## Justification for Complex Solution
      The proposed {N}-phase solution is necessary because:
      1. Simple alternatives fail due to: ___
      2. The complexity is justified by: ___
```

**Why:** This heuristic would have required documenting:
- "Alternative 1: Just enable xUnit parallelization for all tests"
- "Why insufficient: SISTER tests conflict"
- "But wait... only 20% are SISTER tests. Alternative 1 works for 80%!"

---

### 4.4 Quantitative Research Requirements

**What:** Research phase must produce quantitative impact data, not just categorization.

**Where:** Agent definitions for `researcher` (if separate), `/nw:research` command

**How - Slash Command Addition:**

Modify research phase template in `/nw:roadmap`:

```yaml
research_phase:
  mandatory_outputs:
    timing_analysis:
      description: "Execution time breakdown"
      format: |
        | Category | Test Count | Total Time | % of Total | Parallelizable |
        |----------|------------|------------|------------|----------------|
      requirement: "MUST include before proceeding"

    impact_ranking:
      description: "Categories ranked by time contribution"
      format: |
        1. {category}: {time} ({percentage}%) - {parallelizable?}
        2. {category}: {time} ({percentage}%) - {parallelizable?}
      requirement: "MUST rank by time, not by type"

    quick_win_identification:
      description: "Changes with highest impact/effort ratio"
      format: |
        | Change | Effort | Expected Impact | Ratio |
        |--------|--------|-----------------|-------|
      requirement: "MUST identify before architecture design"
```

**Why:** This would have produced:
```
| Category | Time | % of Total | Parallelizable |
|----------|------|------------|----------------|
| Tier 2 Integration | 8m 52s | 70% | 80% YES, 20% needs isolation |
| Tier 3 E2E | 3m 48s | 30% | Needs isolation |

Quick Win: Enable parallelization for Tier 2 non-SISTER tests
- Effort: LOW (configuration only)
- Expected Impact: ~5 minutes saved (80% of 70% of total)
- Ratio: HIGH
```

---

### 4.5 Review Checklist Additions

**What:** Reviewer must validate prioritization, not just completeness.

**Where:** `/nw:review` command, reviewer agent definitions

**How - Review Checklist Addition:**

Add to reviewer critique dimensions:

```yaml
critique_dimensions:
  # ... existing dimensions ...

  priority_validation:
    name: "Priority Validation"
    severity: "CRITICAL"
    questions:
      - "Does roadmap address the LARGEST bottleneck first?"
      - "Are constraint-free quick wins exploited before complex solutions?"
      - "Is the main architecture justified by quantitative data?"

    evidence_required:
      - timing_data: "Proof that addressed problem is largest bottleneck"
      - alternative_rejection: "Documentation of why simpler alternatives were rejected"
      - impact_calculation: "Expected improvement with evidence"

    failure_conditions:
      - "No timing data provided"
      - "Simple alternatives not considered"
      - "Architecture addresses secondary concern"

    template: |
      ## Priority Validation Review

      ### Q1: Is this the largest bottleneck?
      - Evidence: {timing data or "NOT PROVIDED"}
      - Assessment: {YES/NO/UNCLEAR}

      ### Q2: Were simpler alternatives considered?
      - Alternatives documented: {list or "NONE"}
      - Rejection justification: {reason or "NOT PROVIDED"}
      - Assessment: {ADEQUATE/INADEQUATE}

      ### Q3: Is architecture data-justified?
      - Key architectural decision: {decision}
      - Supporting quantitative evidence: {data or "NONE"}
      - Assessment: {JUSTIFIED/UNJUSTIFIED}

      ### Verdict
      - [ ] PASS: Priority validated
      - [ ] FAIL: Roadmap may address wrong problem
```

**Why:** This would have caught:
- Q1: NO - Tier 2 (8m 52s) > Tier 3 (3m 48s), but roadmap focuses on Tier 3's constraint
- Q2: NO - Simple parallelization for non-SISTER tests not considered
- Q3: NO - Credential pool architecture not justified by data showing it's primary need

---

## 5. Implementation Checklist

### Priority 1: Critical (Implement Immediately)

| Step | Action | File to Modify | Effort |
|------|--------|---------------|--------|
| 1.1 | Add "Measure Before Plan" principle to solution-architect | `nWave/agents/nw/solution-architect.md` | 30 min |
| 1.2 | Add Pre-Planning Measurement Gate to /nw:roadmap | `.claude/commands/nw/roadmap.md` | 30 min |
| 1.3 | Add Priority Validation dimension to reviewer agents | `nWave/agents/nw/*-reviewer.md` | 45 min |

### Priority 2: High (Implement This Week)

| Step | Action | File to Modify | Effort |
|------|--------|---------------|--------|
| 2.1 | Add Constraint Prioritization Framework to solution-architect | `nWave/agents/nw/solution-architect.md` | 45 min |
| 2.2 | Add "Simplest Solution First" quality gate | `nWave/agents/nw/solution-architect.md` | 30 min |
| 2.3 | Update research phase to require timing analysis | `.claude/commands/nw/roadmap.md` | 30 min |

### Priority 3: Medium (Implement This Sprint)

| Step | Action | File to Modify | Effort |
|------|--------|---------------|--------|
| 3.1 | Add quantitative research requirements to /nw:research | `.claude/commands/nw/research.md` | 30 min |
| 3.2 | Update /nw:split to validate measurement data | `.claude/commands/nw/split.md` | 20 min |
| 3.3 | Document anti-patterns in agent training data | `nWave/data/anti-patterns/` | 60 min |

### Priority 4: Low (Backlog)

| Step | Action | File to Modify | Effort |
|------|--------|---------------|--------|
| 4.1 | Create automated validation scripts | `nWave/utils/validate-roadmap.py` | 2 hours |
| 4.2 | Add telemetry for roadmap quality tracking | Infrastructure | 4 hours |

---

## 6. Validation Criteria

### Test Scenarios That Should Now Succeed

**Scenario 1: Measurement Gate Blocks Premature Roadmap**

```
Input: User requests roadmap for "optimize test execution time"
Expected: Agent asks for timing data before proceeding
Actual (Before Fix): Agent produces roadmap without data
Actual (After Fix): Agent responds "Before creating a roadmap, I need:
  1. Current test execution time breakdown
  2. Time per test category
  3. Largest bottlenecks identified
  Please provide this data or I can help you gather it."
```

**Scenario 2: Constraint Prioritization Prevents Tunnel Vision**

```
Input: User mentions "we have a SISTER single-session constraint"
       while requesting test parallelization
Expected: Agent asks "What percentage of tests use SISTER?"
          Agent documents constraint impact before designing solution
Actual (Before Fix): Agent designs entire architecture around SISTER
Actual (After Fix): Agent produces:
  "Constraint Impact Analysis:
   - SISTER constraint affects: ~20% of integration tests
   - Constraint-free parallelization possible for: ~80%
   Recommendation: Enable parallelization for constraint-free tests FIRST"
```

**Scenario 3: Simple Alternative Documented Before Complex Solution**

```
Input: Request for test parallelization roadmap
Expected: Roadmap includes "Rejected Simple Alternatives" section
Actual (Before Fix): No alternatives documented
Actual (After Fix): Roadmap includes:
  "Rejected Simple Alternatives:
   Alternative 1: Enable xUnit parallelization for all tests
   - What: Set maxParallelThreads in xunit.runner.json
   - Why insufficient: SISTER tests would conflict
   - BUT: This works for 80% of tests - implement as Phase 1

   Alternative 2: ...

   Complex solution (credential pool) justified for remaining 20%"
```

**Scenario 4: Review Catches Prioritization Error**

```
Input: Roadmap that addresses secondary bottleneck
Expected: Reviewer flags priority issue
Actual (Before Fix): Reviewer approves comprehensive roadmap
Actual (After Fix): Review includes:
  "## Priority Validation Review

   Q1: Is this the largest bottleneck?
   - Evidence: Roadmap targets 3m48s problem, but 8m52s problem exists
   - Assessment: NO - secondary concern being addressed

   Q3: Is architecture data-justified?
   - Key decision: Credential pool for all parallelization
   - Supporting data: NONE - no timing breakdown provided
   - Assessment: UNJUSTIFIED

   Verdict: FAIL - Roadmap may address wrong problem

   Recommendation: Measure first, then re-prioritize"
```

### Validation Metrics

| Metric | Before Fix | After Fix | Target |
|--------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| Roadmaps created without timing data | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| Simple alternatives documented | 0% | 100% | 100% |
| Constraint impact quantified | 0% | 100% | 100% |
| Reviewer catches priority errors | 0% | >80% | >90% |

---

## 7. Anti-Patterns to Document

### Anti-Pattern 1: "Architecture Before Measurement"

**Description:** Creating detailed solution architecture without quantitative problem analysis.

**Example from this incident:**
```yaml
# WRONG: Designing solution without measuring problem
phases:
  - number: 0
    name: "Acceptance Test Definition"  # Defining WHAT to build
  - number: 1
    name: "Research"  # Finally measuring, but architecture already implied
```

**Warning signs:**
- Roadmap has "establish baseline" step after solution is designed
- Acceptance criteria defined without current state measurement
- "Research" phase asks about implementation details, not problem scope

**Correct pattern:**
```yaml
# RIGHT: Measure first, then design
phases:
  - number: 0
    name: "Baseline Measurement"  # FIRST: What's the problem?
    outputs: [timing_breakdown, bottleneck_ranking, quick_wins]
  - number: 1
    name: "Solution Design"  # SECOND: Design based on data
```

---

### Anti-Pattern 2: "Constraint-Anchored Architecture"

**Description:** Allowing a user-mentioned constraint to dominate solution design regardless of its actual impact.

**Example from this incident:**
```
User mentioned: "SISTER single-session constraint"
Result: Entire 34-step roadmap organized around credential isolation
Reality: Constraint affects only 20% of the problem
```

**Warning signs:**
- Solution architecture named after the constraint
- No quantification of constraint impact
- No "what if we ignored this constraint?" analysis

**Correct pattern:**
```markdown
## Constraint Impact Analysis

| Constraint | % Problem Affected | Priority |
|------------|-------------------|----------|
| SISTER single-session | 20% | SECONDARY |
| Test isolation (general) | 80% | PRIMARY |

Architecture should address 80% problem first.
```

---

### Anti-Pattern 3: "Comprehensiveness Over Correctness"

**Description:** Measuring roadmap quality by detail and completeness rather than problem-solution fit.

**Example from this incident:**
- 34 steps with detailed TDD cycles
- 1300+ lines of review feedback
- Multiple sophisticated abstractions (ITestCredentialPool, ICredentialLease)
- All addressing the wrong problem

**Warning signs:**
- Pride in roadmap length/detail
- Reviews focus on "are steps complete?" not "is this the right problem?"
- No "sanity check" step asking "should we do this at all?"

**Correct pattern:**
```markdown
## Roadmap Validation Checklist

Before detailed planning:
- [ ] Problem is quantified (timing data)
- [ ] This is the LARGEST bottleneck
- [ ] Simpler solutions are insufficient (documented)
- [ ] Proposed approach achieves meaningful improvement (calculated)

Only proceed to detailed steps if ALL boxes checked.
```

---

### Anti-Pattern 4: "Qualitative Research Masquerading as Analysis"

**Description:** Categorizing and describing without quantifying impact.

**Example from this incident:**
```yaml
# WRONG: Categorization without quantification
research_findings:
  categories:
    - name: "Integration.Infrastructure"
      sister_dependency: false
      # Missing: How long does this take? What % of total?
```

**Warning signs:**
- Categories described by type (SISTER/non-SISTER) not by impact (5 min / 30 sec)
- "Identified tests" without timing data
- Research outputs feed directly to implementation without prioritization

**Correct pattern:**
```yaml
# RIGHT: Quantified research
research_findings:
  categories:
    - name: "Integration.Infrastructure"
      test_count: 45
      execution_time: "4m 30s"
      percent_of_total: "51%"
      parallelization_impact: "Saves ~3m with simple config change"
```

---

### Anti-Pattern 5: "Missing Escape Hatch"

**Description:** No mechanism to question fundamental assumptions mid-roadmap.

**Example from this incident:**
- Reviews asked "are steps complete?" and "are patterns correct?"
- No review asked "should we be doing this at all?"
- Reviewers improved the roadmap quality without questioning its premise

**Warning signs:**
- Review dimensions all focus on execution quality
- No "premise validation" or "priority check" dimension
- Reviewers assume roadmap goal is correct

**Correct pattern:**
```yaml
review_dimensions:
  premise_validation:  # NEW: Question the goal
    questions:
      - "Is this the most impactful problem to solve?"
      - "Does data support this priority?"
      - "What are we NOT doing by doing this?"
```

---

## 8. Reference: Problem Summary

For future reference, here is the actual problem that should have been solved:

### The Real Optimization Opportunity

| Action | Effort | Expected Impact | Priority |
|--------|--------|-----------------|----------|
| Enable xUnit parallelization for non-SISTER Tier 2 tests | LOW (config only) | ~5-6 min saved | **1ST** |
| Optimize SISTER-dependent tests (credential pool) | HIGH (34 steps) | ~1-2 min saved | **2ND** |
| E2E test optimization | MEDIUM | ~1-2 min saved | **3RD** |

### What the Correct Roadmap Would Look Like

```yaml
project:
  name: "Integration Test Performance Optimization"
  goal: "Reduce CI test execution time through prioritized parallelization"

phases:
  - number: 0
    name: "Baseline Measurement"
    steps:
      - "Measure current test execution time"
      - "Break down time by test category"
      - "Identify parallelization opportunities"
      - "Rank by impact/effort ratio"

  - number: 1
    name: "Quick Win: Non-SISTER Parallelization"
    steps:
      - "Enable xUnit parallelization in configuration"
      - "Verify non-SISTER tests run in parallel"
      - "Measure improvement"
    expected_impact: "~5-6 minutes saved"
    effort: "LOW - configuration only"

  - number: 2
    name: "SISTER Test Isolation"
    steps:
      - "Implement credential pool for SISTER tests"
      - "... (simplified version of original roadmap)"
    expected_impact: "~1-2 minutes saved"
    effort: "MEDIUM"
    prerequisite: "Only if Phase 1 insufficient"
```

---

## 9. Document Metadata

**Created:** 2025-12-03
**Author:** agent-builder (Sage)
**Purpose:** Capture lessons learned for future agent/command improvements
**Status:** Ready for implementation session
**Review Required:** Before applying changes to production agents

### Files Referenced

| File | Purpose |
|------|---------|
| `docs/workflow/integration-test-parallelization/roadmap.yaml` | The problematic roadmap analyzed |
| Agent definitions (to be modified) | Targets for improvements |
| Slash commands (to be modified) | Targets for improvements |

### Next Steps

1. Schedule implementation session to apply Priority 1 changes
2. Test changes with synthetic scenarios (Section 6)
3. Monitor next roadmap creation for improvement
4. Iterate based on results
