#!RFC-AI/2;id=24;draft=5;v=0.5.0;status=draft;lang=en;dir=auto;theme=chatgpt-mono;sha256=1282817c43c5f379a35096bc4612c7e6bfeefff273f456a64d8e52af718da611
For easier reading, view RFC-AI documents using RFC-AI Reader software.

RFC-AI 24 — RESILIENCE, OBSERVABILITY AND DISASTER RECOVERY
DOCUMENT CLASS: AI RFC — INTELLIGENT-WORK GUIDANCE
STATUS: DRAFT FOR CEO REVIEW — ENTIRE RFC-AI SYSTEM UNIMPLEMENTED

1. PURPOSE — WHAT AND WHY
Build recoverable systems and verify recovery. A backup, monitoring signal or recovery claim matters only if it protects a real objective under plausible failures.

2. INTELLIGENT-WORK DIRECTION
Use the relevant resilience and storage Interfaces; investigate dependencies, preserve evidence, verify recovery exercises and report the actual remaining exposure without creating unsupported guarantees.

3. PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH
Use the relevant authorized Interface, component and expressly designated Standard: resilience/recovery component, StorageInterface. Investigate the complete relevant context before deciding what the assignment means (see RFC-AI 11). A competent worker may discover, invent and improve the necessary methods during implementation; this guiding AI RFC is not required to repeat low-level APIs, algorithms or technology choices. Previous and legacy systems are research evidence only, never an implementation of this draft.

4. EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Use independent DAVG as described in RFC-AI 22 to challenge whether the eventual real-world result meets the objective, not whether the AI RFC looks like a traditional API specification. A missing prerequisite creates an active cross-worker recovery obligation through the worker coordination Interface, not a reason to abandon the task (RFC-AI 20 and 31). Report only verified effects and preserve lessons without reintroducing old operational mistakes.

5. DESIGN CUSTODY
Original subject-specific intended contract: UTC event logs, provider-observed telemetry, backups independent of one account, recovery objectives, retry safety, fault-injection exercises, financial limits and verified restoration.
Implementation tasks, legacy-derived candidate methods, proposed data schemas, tests and open engineering questions are kept with this draft's append-only objectives.txt or the responsible Interface/Standard. This RFC has NOT been implemented; it does not approve a deployment or create a new CEO release gate. Rewritten 2026-11-02T20:28:09.285Z.


## HISTORICAL FAILURE EVIDENCE — RESEARCH ONLY; NOT AN RFC-AI IMPLEMENTATION
Historical context: Retry, rollback and recovery were proposed without always demonstrating verified reconstruction of the desired outcome.
Historical reports have mixed evidence quality; verify primary facts before adopting a claimed root cause. Preserve source provenance and do NOT operationalize retired legacy policies as current RFC authority.

## MUST-DESIGN CRITERIA — CEO-DIRECTED PROPOSED FUTURE SYSTEM
MUST-24-01: MUST plan recovery by actual verified destination state and independent restoration evidence; retry success claims without checking completed effects are forbidden.
MUST-24-02: MUST preserve protected work and select an alternative path when host/provider/worker delivery fails.

IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: Entire RFC-AI system NOT IMPLEMENTED. Historical systems are independent past research material; no test or existing service may be counted as implementing this RFC-AI.


## ADDITIONAL MUST-DESIGN CRITERIA — 2026-11-02 (PROPOSED, NOT IMPLEMENTED)
Historical trigger: legacy materials repeatedly confused authored progress, scripts and document content with real observed execution; this is research evidence, not proof of any new RFC implementation.
MUST: Plan recovery for distributed partial outcomes, queue overload, timeouts and post-deployment regressions; distinguish recovery of an obligation from repeating a side effect.
MUST consider the concrete literal behavior of competent AI workers and enforce required hard safeguards by simple, separately running Interface logic where an actual boundary exists. MUST not delegate Interface internal details back to this guiding document. MUST preserve the requirement in relevant top-level objectives.txt and independently verify that future implementation satisfies it. New requirements here remain draft, not live controls.

## DESIGN REVIEW ADDENDUM 2026-11-03 — RESILIENCE BUDGET
REQ-AI-24-LOAD-001: Durable operation MUST define resource budgets, forensic retention, disk headroom, rate limits, bounded retries, circuit breaking, fairness and safe deferral when collectors/providers are down. The obligation persists without requiring unbounded compute; use tested independent emergency recovery when the primary control fails.
REQ-AI-24-LOAD-002: A contextual environment envelope MUST disclose observed storage pressure and service unavailability with timestamp/source and freshness, never assume the last-known healthy machine remains so.

DESIGN CORRECTION LOAD-12 — Backpressure, evidence retention, disk pressure and safe deferral
RATIONALE: The legacy data volume has approached capacity limits; unchecked receipts and infinite retries can make a control system destroy its own availability.
REQUIRED FUTURE BEHAVIOR: The future resilience Standard MUST identify bounded queue budget, storage thresholds, protected forensic retention, safe overload priorities, burst limits, provider rate limits, exponential backoff with jitter when relevant, long-term obligation persistence and independent emergency recovery. Deterministic worker responsibility means preserve an obligation despite temporary lack of execution; it MUST NOT require unlimited CPU/storage or busy loops. The actual Context section SHOULD report observed resource pressure with freshness rather than inferred healthy state.
ADVERSARIAL DESIGN ACCEPTANCE: At simulated 96% disk usage and a failed collector, preserve essential evidence and next action, degrade nonessential work, leave outcomes incomplete, and show an auditable recovery path. Test emergency channel independent of failed normal service.
SCOPE: Draft future design and test contract; NOT installed RFC-AI software.