[Atom-oh]

Removes ADR references from intro-deck architecture slides 1-9: 02-architecture.md (source), 02-architecture.html (per-part rendering) and the matching slide and speaker-note lines of the combined index.html. Slides 10-19 are in #205.

Merge order: #196, #197 and #205 are independent and can merge in any order (their index.html edits touch disjoint lines). Each carries its Markdown source block, its per-part HTML rendering and the matching lines of the combined index.html together, so no review sees a rendering diverge from its source; splitting this way keeps each review under the 128 KiB AI review input limit. #195 is superseded once all three merge.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[github-actions]

🤖 AI Code Review (two independent reviewers)

_Reviewer responses: codex/ALL claude/ALL _

Status: PASSED — No blocking issues found

Both panels' facts are now verified against the base tree and the merge-base commit. I have what I need to synthesize the chair review.

PR #196 — Chair Review (docs-site: remove ADR references from the deck architecture section)

1. Summary

This is a docs-site-only PR: it strips ADR citation tokens (ADR-003/004/005/009/015/030, ADR-001/010) from presentation prose, slide titles, and presenter notes in the awsops-intro architecture deck (02-architecture.md, 02-architecture.html, merged index.html), replacing them with generic wording ("FROZEN", "설계 원칙에 따라", "거버넌스 아래"). No application, Terraform, IAM, or query code is touched, and every safety-posture statement (remediation FROZEN/do-not-enable, read-only tooling, integrations_write gated-not-frozen) is preserved in substance. The two panels reached directly conflicting MAJOR findings — codex says restore the references, claude says finish removing them — and chair verification shows neither holds as a blocking defect.

2. Issues per lens

L2 — Code correctness

• No issues (both models agree). All edits stay inside JS string literals in the presenterNotes objects; escaped quotes, \n sequences, and balanced parentheses verified in the diff. No renderer keys off the removed substrings.
• MINOR (claude only): the Aurora bullet now opens with a bare "스키마 (v9 baseline)" after losing its leading identifier (02-architecture.md:244 and HTML mirrors). Cosmetic wording degradation; note the removed "ADR-030" was itself a stale legacy number (the current record is ADR-001[legacy 030] per CLAUDE.md), so dropping it is arguably a correction.

L3 — Security / AWS mutation safety

• No blocking issues (both models agree the mutation boundary is untouched). The FROZEN/do-not-enable labels, the "no auto-remediation" claim, and the ADR-015 single-exception semantics survive in every edited location. No secrets, ARNs, or account identifiers introduced; the public-site secret-pattern gate is unaffected.
• Codex's MAJOR ("repository policy explicitly retains ADR numbers — restore them") is rejected as a false positive. CLAUDE.md's statement that "docs here cite ADRs by number for traceability only" is descriptive — it explains why numbers appear despite the bodies being private; it is not a retention mandate, and it is scoped to docs/, not the public docs-site/ product content. Decisively, the merge-base commit itself (bb1c8d6, PR docs-site: remove ADR references from overview, monitoring, security and compute pages #201, authored by the repo owner) is "docs-site: remove ADR references from overview, monitoring, security and compute pages" — this PR continues an owner-sanctioned series, and no control is weakened (the CLAUDE.md custom-MCP review rule asks to flag weakened controls/bypasses; none exists here).
• MINOR (downgraded from claude's framing): traceability from the deck's FROZEN labels to their governing decision is reduced. The governance documents (CLAUDE.md, runbooks, reference docs) retain full ADR citations, so auditability survives outside the deck; worth a deliberate owner acknowledgment, not a block.

L4 — Observability / data-integration correctness

• No issues (both models agree). The reworded steampipeAvailable() sentence remains factually correct against the implementation contract (unconditional false, fail-open reset to ops routing); all retained figures (41 inventory types, 30 slices, 9 READY gateways, 16 chat keys) are unchanged and consistent with base docs.

L5 — Docs/ADR consistency

• MINOR — incomplete removal within the PR's own scope (claude flagged MAJOR; chair downgrades). Verified: after this patch, the same files still contain substantial ADR citation text — 02-architecture.md keeps ~17 of 28 occurrences (e.g. lines 487/509 worker notes including the identical ADR-009 rule de-cited elsewhere in this diff, 621 ADR-011 slide title, 678 ADR-002 login heading, 763–814 posture slides), and merged index.html keeps ~29 of 42 (e.g. lines 191, 258, 299, 314). One continuous presentation now mixes both conventions, and sibling decks 01/03 plus the two inline SVG assets (compliance-benchmark-flow.svg, security-findings-pipeline.svg) and the PPTX generator still cite ADRs. Downgrade rationale: the removal is an incremental per-section series (PR docs-site: remove ADR references from overview, monitoring, security and compute pages #201 precedent), no statement became false, and no checked convention is violated — but the inconsistency is real and the follow-up obligation (including the PPTX refresh requirement in the deck README) should be tracked.
• MINOR (claude only, confirmed): 02-architecture.md:509's surviving note is semantically built around naming ADR-13 ("현재 구현은 ADR 범위를 넘어섬"); completing the cleanup there requires a content rewrite, not token deletion.

3. Suggestions

1. Land follow-up PRs covering the remaining ADR references in this same deck (slides 10+ of part 2, the posture slides in index.html), decks 01/03, the two SVG assets rendered inside these slides, and the PPTX generator — and refresh the PPTX per the deck README's sync requirement.
2. Record the new convention ("public docs-site content does not cite ADR numbers") in docs-site/README.md or CLAUDE.md so future deck edits don't reintroduce them, and so reviewers stop reaching opposite conclusions about intent.
3. Rewrap the Aurora schema bullet as "v9 baseline 스키마 + …" and decide explicitly what to do with the 02-architecture.md:509 ADR-13 scope caveat rather than letting it fall out of the series silently.

4. Verdict

No CRITICAL or MAJOR finding survives verification: codex's MAJOR contradicts the owner's own merge-base commit establishing the removal direction, and claude's MAJOR is an incompleteness/consistency concern in presentation prose with no factual, security, or convention breach — downgraded to MINOR with tracked follow-ups. The image manifest lists no images and no omissions.

IMAGE_COVERAGE: NOT_REQUIRED

---

Triggered by commit b9890532e3319810a0f043a88a17fe4c68833f76 · workflow: .github/workflows/pr-review.yml