Test 100

Hema, Wes, Cyrus, Roman, Nadia, and I reviewed the October 6 production evidence. We did not close the broader scale-response cycle: the observation showed no accepted points lost but did not establish whether any accepted batch was lost. We retained the 2,048-batch global queue, 64-pending-batch tenant limit, retryable pre-acceptance backpressure path, existing owner map, and my responsibility to open any production window. We did not open another queue design or production window. For any later customer forecast above 16.0 million data points per minute, the mapped owners must first complete a fresh 90-minute staged replay at 15% above the new forecast peak using its tenant distribution, batch-size distribution, and burst pattern. The replay qualifies only if queue-wait p99 does not exceed 400 milliseconds for five consecutive minutes, retryable queue-full responses do not exceed 0.5% for five consecutive minutes, no tenant exceeds 64 pending batches, no accepted batch is lost, and consistency, parity, dropped-series, route, shard-keeper lease, rollup-service, and full-health checks remain at baseline throughout. If any condition fails, I may not open a capacity-related production window until the candidate is revised and a fresh replay passes. Neither the October 6 result nor the earlier staged replay substitutes for that evidence. Wes’s independent handling of the live ramp is retained as formal ownership-review evidence, but I remain formal metrics-router primary and the owner map is unchanged. Update the October 7 evidence-review event and Mosaic decision record with this outcome, then post the concise bounded summary to #infra.