Intake Start (SDLC)

Purpose

IMPORTANT: This command is for teams who have manually crafted their own intake documents (project-intake.md, solution-profile.md, option-matrix.md) and want to validate them before starting the SDLC process.

If you need to generate intake documents, use one of these instead:

/intake-wizard "description" - Generate intake from scratch with interactive guidance
/intake-from-codebase . - Generate intake by analyzing existing codebase

This command is NOT required if you used intake-wizard or intake-from-codebase - those commands produce complete, validated intake forms ready for the next phase.

Task

Given existing, manually-created Project Intake documents:

Process guidance from user prompt (if provided) to tailor analysis
Validate required fields and note gaps
Generate or update phase-plan-inception.md and risk-list.md
Recommend initial ADRs and agent assignments
Hand off to Executive Orchestrator to start Concept → Inception flow

Parameters

<path-to-intake-folder-or-form> (required): Path to intake directory (default: .aiwg/intake/)
--guidance "text" (optional): User-provided context to guide inception planning

Guidance Parameter Usage

The --guidance parameter accepts free-form text to help tailor the Inception phase planning. Use it for:

Process Focus:

/intake-start .aiwg/intake/ --guidance "Focus on security architecture first, compliance is critical path"

Risk Priorities:

/intake-start .aiwg/intake/ --guidance "Third-party API integration is biggest unknown, needs spike ASAP"

Team Constraints:

/intake-start .aiwg/intake/ --guidance "Team has limited DevOps experience, need extra support for infrastructure setup"

Stakeholder Expectations:

/intake-start .aiwg/intake/ --guidance "Executive demo required in 2 weeks, need working prototype for fundraising"

Technical Unknowns:

/intake-start .aiwg/intake/ --guidance "Performance at scale unproven, need load testing POC before committing to architecture"

How guidance influences planning:

Prioritizes specific risks based on guidance (e.g., "API integration" → elevate integration risks)
Tailors agent assignments (e.g., "limited DevOps" → assign DevOps Engineer + provide training resources)
Adjusts phase plan (e.g., "demo in 2 weeks" → front-load UI prototype tasks)
Highlights critical path items (e.g., "compliance critical" → security gates moved earlier)
Documents in phase-plan-inception.md (captures strategic focus and constraints)
Recommends spikes/POCs based on unknowns mentioned in guidance

Inputs

project-intake.md (filled) - Comprehensive system documentation with metadata, architecture, scale, security, team details
solution-profile.md (filled) - Current profile characteristics, improvement roadmap, risk mitigation, key decisions
option-matrix.md (filled) - 6-step framework application analysis with priorities and trade-offs

Outputs

phase-plan-inception.md - Tailored inception plan based on validated intake
risk-list.md - Prioritized risks with mitigation strategies
agent-assignments.md - Recommended agent assignments based on project characteristics

Workflow

Step 1: Read and Process Guidance

If --guidance parameter provided:

Extract guidance text from user prompt
Document guidance in notes for later use
Use guidance to prioritize validation checks (e.g., "security critical" → focus security validation)

Step 2: Locate and Read Intake Documents

Default location: .aiwg/intake/ (or user-provided path)

Required files:

project-intake.md
solution-profile.md
option-matrix.md

Error handling:

If path is a directory, look for files within it
If path is a single file, read it and look for other files in same directory
If files missing, report which ones and stop (cannot proceed without complete intake)

Step 3: Validate Project Intake (Comprehensive)

Critical sections to validate (from new comprehensive template):

Metadata Validation

Project name present
Requestor/owner identified
Date present
Stakeholders listed (minimum: Engineering, Product)

System Overview Validation

Purpose clearly stated (1-2 sentences minimum)
Current Status specified (Planning/Development/Early Users/Production)
Users defined (count, personas, or description)
Tech Stack documented:
- Languages specified
- Frontend (if applicable)
- Backend (if applicable)
- Database specified
- Deployment approach specified

Problem and Outcomes Validation

Problem statement present (for existing systems) OR goal statement (for greenfield)
Outcomes defined (success criteria, key results)

Current Scope and Features Validation

Feature list present (minimum 1 feature for MVP+, 3+ for Production)
Features categorized or prioritized

Architecture Validation

Architectural style specified (monolith/microservices/serverless/etc.)
Major components listed (minimum 2-3 for Production+)
Data models documented (at least high-level entities)
Integration points identified (external APIs, third-party services)

Scale and Performance Validation

Expected user capacity documented (even if estimate)
Active users estimate provided
Performance characteristics specified (response times, throughput, etc.)

Security and Compliance Validation

Security posture stated (Minimal/Baseline/Strong/Enterprise)
Data classification documented (if handling user data)
Security controls listed (authentication, authorization, etc.)
Compliance requirements specified (if any: GDPR, HIPAA, SOC2, etc.)

Team and Operations Validation

Team size documented (minimum: developer count)
Current velocity/cadence noted (for existing teams)
Process maturity described (trunk-based, PR workflow, CI/CD, etc.)
Operational support plan outlined (on-call, monitoring, etc.)

Dependencies and Infrastructure Validation

Third-party services listed (all critical external dependencies)
Infrastructure details specified (cloud provider, regions, etc.)

Known Issues and Technical Debt Validation

Known risks documented (even if "none identified yet")
Technical debt acknowledged (if existing system)

Why This Intake Now? Validation

Context provided (why starting SDLC process now)
Goals clearly stated
Triggers identified (timeline, funding, user need, etc.)

Gap Handling:

For critical gaps (no purpose, no tech stack, no team size): STOP and request user fill gaps
For moderate gaps (missing performance estimates, unclear compliance): WARN and note in phase plan
For minor gaps (missing optional sections): NOTE in validation summary

Step 4: Validate Solution Profile (Comprehensive)

Critical sections to validate (from new comprehensive template):

Profile Selection Validation

Profile chosen (Prototype/MVP/Production/Enterprise)
Selection rationale provided (explains why this profile fits)

Current State Characteristics Validation

Security:

Posture specified (Minimal/Baseline/Strong/Enterprise)
Controls present documented
Gaps identified
Recommendation provided

Reliability:

Current SLOs documented (or "N/A" for non-services)
Availability targets specified
Monitoring maturity described
User priority noted (from option-matrix)
Recommendation provided (investment areas)

Testing & Quality:

Test coverage documented (current percentage)
Test types detected/planned
Quality gates specified
User priority noted
Recommendation provided (testing strategy)

Process Rigor:

SDLC adoption level documented
Code review process described
Documentation status assessed
Recommendation provided (process improvements)

Recommended Profile Adjustments Validation

Current profile stated
Recommended profile specified
Transition plan outlined (phases with actions and timelines)

Improvement Roadmap Validation

Phase 1 (Immediate) defined with critical gaps
Phase 2 (Short-term) defined with important improvements
Phase 3 (Long-term) defined with strategic improvements
Each phase includes: rationale, success metrics

Risk Mitigation Validation

Key Decisions Needed Validation

Gap Handling:

For critical gaps (no profile, no improvement roadmap): STOP and request completion
For moderate gaps (missing risk mitigation, unclear decisions): WARN and elevate in phase plan
For minor gaps (incomplete success metrics): NOTE in validation summary

Step 5: Validate Option Matrix (Comprehensive)

Critical sections to validate (from new 6-step template):

Step 1: Project Reality Validation

What IS This Project? - Clear description (2-3 sentences minimum)
Audience & Scale - Target users and scale documented
Deployment & Infrastructure - Deployment model specified
Technical Complexity - Complexity assessment provided

Step 2: Constraints & Context Validation

Resources - Team size, timeline, budget constraints documented
Regulatory & Compliance - Requirements specified (or "None")
Technical Context - Legacy systems, existing infrastructure noted

Step 3: Priorities & Trade-offs Validation (CRITICAL)

Priority Weights table present
Weights sum to 1.0 (verify mathematically)
Each criterion has rationale:
- Delivery Speed (0.10-0.50)
- Cost Efficiency (0.10-0.40)
- Quality/Security (0.10-0.50)
- Reliability/Scale (0.10-0.40)
Trade-off context provided (explains hard choices)

Priority validation is CRITICAL because it drives:

Phase plan task prioritization
Agent assignment decisions
Quality gate thresholds
Risk tolerance levels

Step 4: Intent & Decision Context Validation (CRITICAL)

Why This Intake Now? - Clearly stated (business/technical triggers)
What decisions need making? - Key decisions identified
What's uncertain? - Unknowns acknowledged

Intent validation is CRITICAL because it shapes:

Phase plan focus areas
Spike/POC recommendations
Early ADR topics

Step 5: Framework Application Validation

Templates - Checked boxes for applicable templates (or explicit "NONE")
Commands - Checked boxes for applicable commands
Agents - Checked boxes for applicable agents
Process Rigor Level - Specified (Minimal/Moderate/Full/Enterprise)
Rationale - Explains why these components selected

Step 6: Evolution & Adaptation Validation

Expected Changes - Documented (team growth, feature expansion, etc.)
Adaptation Triggers - Specified (when to revisit framework choices)
Planned Framework Evolution - Outlined (how framework will evolve with project)

Architectural Options Analysis Validation (Optional but Recommended)

Option A documented (if applicable)
Option B documented (if applicable)
Option C documented (if applicable)
Recommendation provided with rationale

Gap Handling:

For critical gaps (no Step 3 weights, no Step 4 intent): STOP and request completion
For moderate gaps (missing Step 6, incomplete rationale): WARN and use defaults
For minor gaps (no architectural options): NOTE (optional section)

Step 6: Generate Validation Summary

Create structured validation report:

# Intake Validation Summary

**Validation Date**: {current date}
**Intake Path**: {path to intake directory}
**Guidance Provided**: {yes/no, summary if provided}

## Completeness Assessment

**Project Intake**: {COMPLETE | GAPS PRESENT | CRITICAL GAPS}
- {list critical gaps if any}
- {list moderate gaps if any}

**Solution Profile**: {COMPLETE | GAPS PRESENT | CRITICAL GAPS}
- {list critical gaps if any}
- {list moderate gaps if any}

**Option Matrix**: {COMPLETE | GAPS PRESENT | CRITICAL GAPS}
- {list critical gaps if any}
- {list moderate gaps if any}

## Readiness for Inception

**Status**: {READY | NEEDS COMPLETION | BLOCKED}

**Recommendation**:
- {If READY: proceed to phase planning}
- {If NEEDS COMPLETION: list required actions}
- {If BLOCKED: explain blockers and resolution steps}

## Key Insights from Intake

**Project Profile**: {Prototype/MVP/Production/Enterprise}
**Top Priority**: {from Step 3 weights}
**Biggest Risk**: {from solution-profile risk mitigation}
**Critical Decision**: {from solution-profile key decisions}

## Next Steps

1. {action 1}
2. {action 2}
3. {action 3}

Decision point:

If READY: Proceed to Step 7 (Generate Phase Plan)
If NEEDS COMPLETION: Output validation summary and STOP (user must complete intake)
If BLOCKED: Output validation summary with resolution steps and STOP

Step 7: Generate Phase Plan (Inception)

Create phase-plan-inception.md based on validated intake:

Structure:

# Phase Plan: Inception

**Project**: {from project-intake metadata}
**Profile**: {from solution-profile}
**Generated**: {current date}
**Guidance Applied**: {summary of --guidance if provided}

## Phase Overview

**Duration**: {estimate based on profile: Prototype=1-2 weeks, MVP=2-4 weeks, Production=4-6 weeks, Enterprise=6-8 weeks}
**Team Size**: {from project-intake team section}
**Primary Focus**: {derived from option-matrix Step 4 intent}

## Phase Goals

1. **Architectural Foundation**: {from solution-profile improvement roadmap Phase 1}
2. **Risk Retirement**: {from solution-profile risk mitigation top risks}
3. **Team Alignment**: {from project-intake team section}
4. **Decision Making**: {from solution-profile key decisions}

## Priority-Driven Focus

**Top Priority** (from option-matrix Step 3): {highest weighted criterion}
**Implication**: {explain how this priority shapes Inception tasks}

**Examples**:
- If **Reliability/Scale** is top priority → focus architecture scalability, load testing POC, SLO definition
- If **Quality/Security** is top priority → focus security architecture, threat modeling, compliance review
- If **Delivery Speed** is top priority → focus MVP scope definition, technical spikes, rapid prototyping
- If **Cost Efficiency** is top priority → focus cloud cost modeling, resource optimization, vendor selection

## Key Activities (Tailored to Intake)

### Week 1: Foundation
- [ ] Kick-off meeting with stakeholders (from project-intake stakeholders list)
- [ ] Architecture baseline (from project-intake architecture section)
- [ ] Risk register initialization (from solution-profile risk mitigation)
- [ ] Tool and environment setup (from project-intake tech stack)

### Week 2-3: Exploration and Decision Making
- [ ] {activity 1 from solution-profile improvement roadmap Phase 1}
- [ ] {activity 2 from solution-profile key decisions}
- [ ] {spike/POC recommendation if guidance or option-matrix Step 4 mentions unknowns}
- [ ] Initial ADRs (see recommendations below)

### Week 4: Closure and Handoff
- [ ] Architecture review (validate against option-matrix architectural options)
- [ ] Risk reassessment (update risk-list.md)
- [ ] Inception gate check (validate readiness for Elaboration)
- [ ] Handoff to Elaboration (prepare phase-plan-elaboration.md)

## Risks and Mitigation (From Solution Profile)

{Pull top 3-5 risks from solution-profile risk mitigation section}

**Risk 1**: {risk name}
- **Impact**: {HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW}
- **Mitigation**: {strategies from solution-profile}
- **Timeline**: {when to address}

**Risk 2**: {risk name}
- **Impact**: {HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW}
- **Mitigation**: {strategies from solution-profile}
- **Timeline**: {when to address}

{...additional risks}

## Critical Decisions (From Solution Profile)

{Pull from solution-profile key decisions section}

**Decision 1**: {decision question}
- **Options**: {list 2-3 alternatives}
- **Recommendation**: {from solution-profile}
- **Deadline**: {when decision must be made}
- **Owner**: {assign based on decision type}

**Decision 2**: {decision question}
- **Options**: {list 2-3 alternatives}
- **Recommendation**: {from solution-profile}
- **Deadline**: {when decision must be made}
- **Owner**: {assign based on decision type}

{...additional decisions}

## Guidance Integration

{If --guidance provided, document how it influenced this phase plan}

**Guidance Provided**: "{verbatim guidance text}"

**Impact on Phase Plan**:
- {specific adjustment 1 based on guidance}
- {specific adjustment 2 based on guidance}
- {specific adjustment 3 based on guidance}

**Examples**:
- Guidance: "Security architecture first" → Moved threat modeling to Week 1, assigned Security Architect early
- Guidance: "API integration biggest unknown" → Added integration spike to Week 2, elevated API risks
- Guidance: "Team has limited DevOps experience" → Added DevOps Engineer + training resources to agent assignments

## Success Criteria

**Inception complete when**:
1. Architecture baseline documented (ADRs approved)
2. Top 3 risks retired or mitigated
3. Critical decisions resolved
4. Team aligned on approach
5. Inception gate passed (ready for Elaboration)

## Next Phase

**Handoff to**: Elaboration
**Trigger**: Inception gate passed
**Preparation**: Update risk-list.md, generate phase-plan-elaboration.md

Key tailoring points:

Duration scales with profile (Prototype fast, Enterprise slow)
Activities pulled from solution-profile improvement roadmap Phase 1
Risks pulled from solution-profile risk mitigation
Decisions pulled from solution-profile key decisions
Guidance explicitly integrated and documented
Priority focus derived from option-matrix Step 3 weights

Step 8: Generate Risk List

Create risk-list.md based on solution-profile risk mitigation:

Structure:

# Risk List

**Project**: {from project-intake metadata}
**Generated**: {current date}
**Last Updated**: {current date}

## Active Risks

{For each risk from solution-profile risk mitigation section}

### Risk #{n}: {Risk Name}

**Category**: {Technical | Process | Resource | External | Compliance}
**Impact**: {HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW}
**Probability**: {HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW}
**Status**: {Identified | Analyzing | Mitigating | Monitoring | Retired}

**Description**: {from solution-profile}

**Impact if Realized**: {from solution-profile impact description}

**Mitigation Strategies**:
1. {strategy 1 from solution-profile}
2. {strategy 2 from solution-profile}
3. {strategy 3 from solution-profile}

**Timeline**: {from solution-profile mitigation timeline}
**Owner**: {assign based on risk category}
**Last Review**: {current date}

---

{Repeat for all risks from solution-profile}

## Risk Register Summary

| ID | Risk Name | Impact | Probability | Status | Owner |
|----|-----------|--------|-------------|--------|-------|
| R1 | {name} | {H/M/L} | {H/M/L} | {status} | {owner} |
| R2 | {name} | {H/M/L} | {H/M/L} | {status} | {owner} |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Risk Burn-down Target

**Inception Phase Goal**: Retire or mitigate top 3 risks
**Elaboration Phase Goal**: Retire or mitigate remaining HIGH risks
**Construction Phase Goal**: Monitor and address emerging risks
**Transition Phase Goal**: All HIGH risks retired or accepted

## Next Review

**Date**: {1-2 weeks from current date}
**Trigger**: Weekly risk review meeting OR significant risk event

Categorization logic:

Technical: Architecture, technology choice, integration, performance, scalability
Process: Team coordination, code review, testing, deployment
Resource: Team size, skill gaps, timeline, budget
External: Third-party dependencies, vendor reliability, API changes
Compliance: Regulatory requirements, security posture, data protection

Owner assignment logic:

Technical risks → Architecture Designer or Component Owner
Process risks → Project Manager or Executive Orchestrator
Resource risks → Project Manager or Vision Owner
External risks → Integration Engineer or API Designer
Compliance risks → Security Architect or Legal Liaison

Step 9: Generate Agent Assignments

Create agent-assignments.md based on option-matrix Step 5 framework application:

Structure:

# Agent Assignments (Inception Phase)

**Project**: {from project-intake metadata}
**Profile**: {from solution-profile}
**Generated**: {current date}

## Assignment Strategy

**Process Rigor Level**: {from option-matrix Step 5}
**Team Size**: {from project-intake team section}
**Priority Focus**: {from option-matrix Step 3 top weight}

## Core Agents (Always Assigned)

### Executive Orchestrator
**Role**: Lifecycle coordination, gate enforcement, artifact synchronization
**Priority Tasks**:
- Orchestrate Inception phase activities
- Enforce Inception gate criteria
- Coordinate agent handoffs

### Vision Owner
**Role**: Product vision alignment, requirement validation
**Priority Tasks**:
- Validate project-intake alignment with business goals
- Review architectural options against vision
- Approve critical decisions

### Architecture Designer
**Role**: System architecture, technical direction
**Priority Tasks**:
- {from solution-profile improvement roadmap Phase 1 architecture tasks}
- Document ADRs (see recommendations below)
- Review architectural options from option-matrix

## Priority-Driven Agents

{Based on option-matrix Step 3 top priority}

**If Reliability/Scale is top priority**:
- **Reliability Engineer**: Establish SLO/SLI, capacity planning
- **Performance Engineer**: Baseline performance, bottleneck identification
- **DevOps Engineer**: Infrastructure design, monitoring setup

**If Quality/Security is top priority**:
- **Security Architect**: Threat modeling, security requirements
- **Security Gatekeeper**: Security gate criteria, compliance validation
- **Code Reviewer**: Code review standards, quality gates

**If Delivery Speed is top priority**:
- **Software Implementer**: Rapid prototyping, MVP development
- **Test Engineer**: Fast feedback loops, smoke tests
- **Toolsmith**: Developer experience, automation tooling

**If Cost Efficiency is top priority**:
- **Cloud Architect**: Cost modeling, resource optimization
- **DevOps Engineer**: Infrastructure efficiency, right-sizing
- **Integration Engineer**: Vendor selection, API cost analysis

## Risk-Driven Agents

{Based on solution-profile risk mitigation top risks}

**Risk**: {risk 1 name}
**Agent**: {appropriate agent for this risk category}
**Tasks**:
- {mitigation strategy 1}
- {mitigation strategy 2}

**Risk**: {risk 2 name}
**Agent**: {appropriate agent for this risk category}
**Tasks**:
- {mitigation strategy 1}
- {mitigation strategy 2}

{...additional risk-driven assignments}

## Guidance-Driven Agents

{If --guidance provided, assign agents based on guidance context}

**Guidance**: "{verbatim guidance text}"

**Agent Assignments**:
- {agent 1 assigned because of guidance}
- {agent 2 assigned because of guidance}

**Examples**:
- Guidance: "Limited DevOps experience" → Assign DevOps Engineer + provide training resources
- Guidance: "Security critical path" → Assign Security Architect + Security Gatekeeper early
- Guidance: "API integration biggest unknown" → Assign Integration Engineer + API Designer for spike

## Framework-Driven Agents (From Option Matrix Step 5)

{Based on option-matrix Step 5 checked boxes}

**Checked Agents** (from option-matrix):
- {agent 1 from option-matrix rationale}
- {agent 2 from option-matrix rationale}
- {agent 3 from option-matrix rationale}

**Rationale**: {from option-matrix Step 5 rationale section}

## Assignment Timeline

**Week 1** (Inception kickoff):
- Executive Orchestrator (immediate)
- Vision Owner (immediate)
- Architecture Designer (immediate)

**Week 2** (Risk and decision focus):
- {priority-driven agents}
- {risk-driven agents}

**Week 3-4** (As needed):
- {additional agents based on emerging needs}

## Handoff to Elaboration

**Agents continuing into Elaboration**:
- Executive Orchestrator (lifecycle coordination)
- Architecture Designer (architecture evolution)
- {priority-driven agents that remain relevant}

**Agents completing in Inception**:
- {agents whose work ends after Inception}

**New agents for Elaboration**:
- {agents not needed until Elaboration phase}

Agent selection logic:

Core agents (always): Executive Orchestrator, Vision Owner, Architecture Designer
Priority-driven (from option-matrix Step 3 weights): Match top priority to specialized agents
Risk-driven (from solution-profile risks): Assign agents who can mitigate specific risks
Guidance-driven (from --guidance parameter): Assign agents mentioned or implied by guidance
Framework-driven (from option-matrix Step 5): Assign checked agents from framework application

Step 10: Generate Initial ADR Recommendations

Within phase-plan-inception.md, include section:

## Recommended Initial ADRs

{Based on project-intake architecture section, option-matrix architectural options, and solution-profile key decisions}

**ADR-001**: {Decision title from option-matrix architectural options recommendation}
- **Context**: {from option-matrix Step 1 project reality}
- **Decision**: {from option-matrix architectural options recommendation}
- **Rationale**: {from option-matrix recommendation rationale}
- **Status**: Proposed (to be reviewed in Week 2)

**ADR-002**: {Decision title from solution-profile key decisions}
- **Context**: {from solution-profile decision question}
- **Decision**: {from solution-profile recommendation}
- **Rationale**: {from solution-profile recommendation}
- **Status**: Proposed (to be reviewed in Week 2-3)

{Additional ADRs based on guidance or high-impact risks}

**Guidance**: If guidance mentions specific technical decisions or unknowns, recommend ADRs to address them.

Step 11: Summary and Handoff

Output summary message to user:

# Intake Start Complete

✅ **Validation**: All intake documents validated
✅ **Phase Plan**: phase-plan-inception.md generated
✅ **Risk List**: risk-list.md generated
✅ **Agent Assignments**: agent-assignments.md generated

## Key Insights

**Project**: {name}
**Profile**: {profile}
**Top Priority**: {priority}
**Biggest Risk**: {risk}
**Critical Decision**: {decision}

## Generated Artifacts

1. `phase-plan-inception.md` - {file size} KB
2. `risk-list.md` - {file size} KB
3. `agent-assignments.md` - {file size} KB

## Next Steps

1. **Review** generated artifacts (ensure alignment with expectations)
2. **Adjust** if needed (especially if guidance interpretation missed nuances)
3. **Execute** Inception phase using `/flow-concept-to-inception` command
4. **Coordinate** with assigned agents (Executive Orchestrator will orchestrate)

## Ready to Start?

To begin Inception phase execution:
```bash
/flow-concept-to-inception .aiwg/

This will activate the Executive Orchestrator and assigned agents to begin Inception activities.


## Error Handling

### Missing Files
- If project-intake.md missing: **STOP** - "Cannot proceed without project-intake.md. Please run /intake-wizard or /intake-from-codebase first."
- If solution-profile.md missing: **STOP** - "Cannot proceed without solution-profile.md. Please complete intake generation first."
- If option-matrix.md missing: **WARN** - "option-matrix.md missing. Will use defaults for priorities and framework application."

### Incomplete Sections
- If critical gaps found: **STOP** with validation summary - user must complete gaps before proceeding
- If moderate gaps found: **WARN** in validation summary - proceed with noted gaps
- If minor gaps found: **NOTE** in validation summary - proceed normally

### Conflicting Information
- If project-intake and solution-profile conflict (e.g., different team sizes): **WARN** and use project-intake as source of truth
- If option-matrix and solution-profile priorities conflict: **WARN** and use option-matrix Step 3 weights as source of truth

### Invalid Data
- If option-matrix Step 3 weights don't sum to 1.0: **STOP** - "Priority weights must sum to 1.0. Current sum: {calculated sum}. Please fix option-matrix.md."
- If profile not one of (Prototype/MVP/Production/Enterprise): **STOP** - "Invalid profile: {profile}. Must be one of: Prototype, MVP, Production, Enterprise."

## Best Practices

1. **Always validate before generating** - Don't generate phase plans from incomplete intake
2. **Leverage guidance parameter** - Use guidance to prioritize and tailor (don't ignore user's strategic intent)
3. **Be explicit about gaps** - Don't silently fill gaps with assumptions (warn user and document)
4. **Cross-reference documents** - Pull risks from solution-profile, priorities from option-matrix, architecture from project-intake
5. **Tailor to profile** - Prototype gets lightweight plan, Enterprise gets comprehensive plan
6. **Document guidance impact** - Explicitly show how guidance influenced phase plan (transparency builds trust)