Demo
CODA Requirement Intelligence
CODA Requirement Intelligence Engine
Turning operational signals into governed software execution.
CODA Requirement Intelligence turns operational signals into governed software execution.
From logs, grievances, policies, documents, requirements, and codebase evidence into classified control gaps, correlated candidates, implementation reality checks, and human-confirmed engineering decisions.
1.7M+ Logs observed
177 Requirements indexed
5 Source reservoirs
25 Pilot candidates
0 Automatic mutations
Yes Correlation enabled
Current environment snapshot — includes live requirement and candidate batch counts from this environment. · File-backed candidate batches — not production authorization. · Safe fallback metrics; no full log scan on page load.
CODA breakthrough: one operating intelligence layer
Raw operational issue → system-control recommendation — not grievance tone rewriting.
Sources →
SourceSignal →
Classification + Risk →
Cross-source Correlation →
Control Gap Diagnosis →
Requirement Match →
Codebase Reality Check →
Guided Human Confirmation →
Evidence / Audit / Reconciliation
Example: “Employee may have approved payment improperly” →
independent approval workflow, separation of duties, audit logging, exception review —
not “employees should not steal money.”
Multi-source correlation
Related signals across reservoirs converge on one control story — not duplicate tickets.
Policy
Reimbursement requires approval
Grievance
Payment control concern
Log
Approval route fails repeatedly
Requirement
Weak acceptance criteria
Document
Finance procedure — manual approval
Codebase
Partial workflow exists
converges into
→
Financial approval control gap
One cluster · one diagnosis surface
Recommended outcome
Improve existing requirement or create tightening requirement.
Control gap diagnosis
Automated diagnosis complete — humans confirm high-impact decisions.
87% Guided confirmation
Financial-control confirmation required
No strong requirement match
Partial codebase implementation
Problem category Payment control concern
Likely control gap Financial approval control gap
Confidence band 87% — Guided confirmation
Criteria matched
Payment/control pattern detected Grievance source with financial-control relevance No strong requirement match found Partial finance workflow in codebase Missing separation-of-duties and audit-trail evidence
Suggested controls
Independent approval workflow Maker-checker / separation of duties Approval history log Exception monitoring Policy acknowledgment / reminders
Requirement match No strong match — closest weak matches listed for staff.
Codebase reality Partial implementation — approval view found; SoD tests missing.
Missing controls
Separation of duties enforcement Audit trail tests Exception monitoring
Human confirmation
System recommendation needs confirmation because this is a financial-control signal.
Codebase reality check
Requirements describe intent. The codebase reveals reality.
Code evidence is not human acceptance. The requirement row is not final proof of implementation.
Requirement intent
Independent payment approval should exist with separation of duties.
Codebase evidence found
finance payment model approval view reimbursement route
Missing evidence
Separation-of-duties enforcement Audit trail test Exception monitoring
Intent layer What the requirement says should exist.
Implementation evidence Models, views, services, templates, tests in repo.
Reality status Partial / likely implemented / missing controls / needs tests.
Missing controls Suggested controls not evidenced in code.
Next action Improve requirement, tighten, attach evidence, or audit.
Guided human confirmation
CODA performs the diagnosis. Staff confirm, link, defer, dismiss, or use explicit promote for drafts.
Human review means confirmation of the system's diagnosis, not manual re-classification.
Confirm recommendation
Accept the system recommendation after reviewing evidence.
Link existing requirement
Connect the signal to an existing requirement when the match is clear.
Attach evidence
Persist source evidence without changing requirement status.
Create draft requirement
Only through explicit promote flow — never silent creation.
Defer to owner
Send to the correct owner when evidence is incomplete.
Dismiss not actionable
Mark as not actionable without deleting source data.
Governance and safety posture
Evidence-only by default RequirementPrompt artifacts — no automatic field mutation.
No automatic approval GQI, Prompt Packs, and Control Cycle do not authorize production.
Production pilot guarded Feature flags and staff-only routes — not autonomous rollout.
Sensitive source redaction Pilot settings can redact HR/grievance text in reports.
Audit trail preserved Evidence history and reconciliation decisions are retained.
governance_state_change: forbidden
production_activation: blocked
approval_gate: NOT_IMPLEMENTED
Live evidence gallery
Primary evidence is the working route — screenshots are optional for PDF/offline export.
Requirements Intelligence Hub
Command center for backlog health, intelligence links, and AI_SYSTEM tooling.
/requirements/
What to look for
Hub cards linking to candidate review, observatory outputs, and staff tools.
Executive: One front door for requirement intelligence — not scattered admin pages.
Governance: Review and evidence actions do not approve requirements or authorize production.
Technical: Read-only hub; no automatic requirement field mutation.
Candidate Review Queue
File-backed candidate batches from Source Observatory and correlation.
/ai_services/source-candidates/
What to look for
Batch list, grouped view toggle, unresolved vs attached counts.
Executive: Staff see patterns grouped by topic — not hundreds of duplicate rows.
Governance: Review and evidence actions do not approve requirements or authorize production.
Technical: Batches stored under var/ai_system/source_candidates; review_state only.
Current Pilot Batch
Active staff pilot batch when available; otherwise start from the queue.
/ai_services/source-candidates/
What to look for
Grouped review cards, human-readable actions, pilot guardrails banner.
Executive: Controlled pilot scope — not autonomous production rollout.
Governance: Pilot feature flags; production_activation remains blocked.
Technical: Dynamic batch link when review store has batches.
Grouped Review & Control Diagnosis
Automated control gap diagnosis on group and candidate detail.
/ai_services/source-candidates/?view=groups
What to look for
Automated Control Diagnosis block, suggested system controls, live route to codebase reality.
Executive: System completes diagnosis; humans confirm — not manual classification.
Governance: Diagnosis is not proof; recommendation is not approval.
Technical: control_gap_diagnosis service; optional RequirementPrompt evidence on attach.
Implementation Audit & Reconciliation
Compare requirement intent to codebase evidence; staff reconciliation queue.
/ai_services/requirements/implementation-audit/reconciliation/
What to look for
Audit status, matched paths, missing controls, reconciliation decisions.
Executive: Closes the loop between backlog claims and code reality.
Governance: Reconciliation records decisions — does not auto-change spec status.
Technical: implementation_audit scanner + optional RequirementPrompt persistence.
Requirement Detail & Evidence
Open a requirement to view evidence history, GQI, and prompt packs.
/requirements/8296/
What to look for
Evidence history list, AI_SYSTEM artifacts, unchanged requirement fields after evidence attach.
Executive: Evidence-backed requirements — not documentation theater.
Governance: GQI and Prompt Packs score only; they do not approve governance.
Technical: RequirementPrompt evidence types include control gap diagnosis when attached.
Staff Presentation Center
AI-generated pitch center for staff (separate from this flagship page).
/portfolio/requirements/
What to look for
Pitch generation form — login required; does not mutate requirements.
Executive: Optional staff tool for generated narratives.
Governance: Review and evidence actions do not approve requirements or authorize production.
Technical: Preserves /portfolio/requirements/ from PR 19A.
This Flagship Presentation
Curated demo command center with live links (you are here).
/portfolio/requirement-intelligence-platform/demo/
What to look for
Live evidence cards, presenter notes, demo path — links over screenshots.
Executive: Proves the system is alive without waiting for PNG captures.
Governance: Presentation does not run pipelines or authorize production.
Technical: Offline-safe curated content + optional live metrics.
These working routes become the controlled staff pilot path: every step produces evidence, but no step silently approves, mutates, or activates production behavior.
Staff production pilot workflow
Controlled staff pilot — not autonomous production.
1
Report-only Source Observatory
Reads selected source reservoirs; produces JSON/report.
2
Source Correlation
Clusters related signals across sources.
3
Grouped Candidate Review
Staff review grouped by requirement, topic, or control pattern.
4
Control Gap Diagnosis
Automated diagnosis with suggested system controls.
5
Selective Evidence Attachment
Attach to existing requirements via RequirementPrompt.
6
Implementation Audit
Compare requirement text to codebase paths.
7
Reconciliation
Staff queue for audit vs backlog decisions.
8
Findings Report
Pilot metrics and findings for staff learning.
Live demo path
Open working pages in order — each link is read-only or staff-governed review.
Requirements hub
Active requirements list and detail entry points.
/requirements/
Open
Requirement intelligence
Hub linking observatory, candidates, and staff tools.
/requirements/intelligence/
Open
Candidate review
Grouped candidate review and control gap diagnosis.
/ai_services/source-candidates/
Open
Reconciliation queue
Implementation audit findings vs requirement truth.
/ai_services/requirements/implementation-audit/reconciliation/
Open
Staff pitch center
AI-generated pitches (login) — separate from this flagship page.
/portfolio/requirements/
Open
This presentation
Flagship demo command center with live evidence links.
/portfolio/requirement-intelligence-platform/demo/
Open
CODA closes the loop
Operations →
Policy →
Requirements →
Code →
Evidence →
Human confirmation →
Operations
CODA closes the loop.
What happened in operations.
What policy required.
What the backlog claimed.
What the code actually implemented.
What humans approved.
This is the difference between documentation and governed execution.
Press N to toggle.
Do not say “AI creates requirements.”Say: CODA converts operational signals into governed requirement intelligence with humans controlling final decisions.
Opening hook
Do not say 'AI creates requirements.' Say: CODA converts operational signals into governed requirement intelligence — humans control final decisions.
Do / Don't
Don't: imply auto-approval, silent requirement creation, or production activation from this deck. Do: emphasize live routes as proof, guided confirmation, and evidence-only governance.
Problem framing
Organizations drown in fragments: logs, grievances, policies, documents, and a dirty requirement table. None of these alone is the truth.
Breakthrough architecture
One operating layer: SourceSignal → classify → correlate → diagnose → match requirements → check codebase → guided confirmation.
Control gap example
Walk payment/grievance example: system recommends separation of duties and audit trail — not 'employees should not steal.'
Codebase reality
Requirements describe intent. Code is implementation truth. Partial implementation is the norm — diagnosis must say what is missing.
Governance safeguards
Evidence-only, no auto-mutation, production_activation blocked, approval_gate NOT_IMPLEMENTED.
Demo flow
Hub → source candidates → grouped review → control diagnosis → optional evidence attach → audit/reconciliation.
Closing pitch
CODA closes the loop between operations, policy, backlog, code, and human approval — governed execution, not documentation theater.