# Report Example

Read this file only when assembling the final audit and a concrete layout example would help. It is an example, not an additional checklist.

## Audit Scope

- Source plan: `docs/retry-plan.md`
- Snapshot artifact: `docs/retry-plan.audit-input.md`
- Output report: `docs/retry-plan.audit.md`
- Artifact action: `create`
- User request: Add a retry mechanism to the API client for transient failures.
- Baseline context used: `docs/JNS-6065.md`
- Local technical evidence used: `docs/http-client-notes.md`
- Baseline caveat: the request does not mention existing tracing infrastructure.

## Source Requirements

1. [EXPLICIT] Add a retry mechanism to the API client.
2. [EXPLICIT] Target transient failures specifically.
3. [CONSTRAINT] Keep the existing HTTP client wrapper.

## Technical Evidence Review

- `supported` - Claim: the existing wrapper exposes response status codes. Evidence: `docs/http-client-notes.md` says interceptors receive the response object.
- `not-reviewed` - Claim: OpenTelemetry is already deployed for this service. Evidence: no approved local technical evidence covered tracing.

## Findings By Plan Section

### Step 1: Create RetryPolicy class

Snapshot summary:

- Proposes exponential backoff and jitter.
- Also proposes a circuit breaker pattern and request deduplication.

Findings:

- Requirements Auditor: `info` - Exponential backoff and jitter reasonably map to requirements [1] and [2].
- YAGNI Auditor: `critical` - Circuit breaker behavior and request deduplication exceed requirement [1]. Smaller alternative: implement bounded retries inside the existing wrapper.

### Step 2: Add retry interceptor

Snapshot summary:

- Filters retry attempts to transient HTTP status codes.
- Wraps the existing HTTP client with retry logic.

Findings:

- Requirements Auditor: `info` - Maps directly to requirements [1], [2], and [3].
- YAGNI Auditor: `info` - Scope is appropriate for the stated request.
- Assumptions Auditor: `info` - Assumes the wrapper exposes response status codes; approved technical evidence supports this.

### Step 3: Add observability

Snapshot summary:

- Proposes OpenTelemetry tracing for retry attempts.
- Adds dashboards and alerting.

Findings:

- Requirements Auditor: `critical` - Observability is a new concern with no basis in requirements [1] through [3].
- YAGNI Auditor: `warning` - Full tracing, dashboards, and alerting exceed the current scope; structured retry logs would satisfy the likely operational need.
- Assumptions Auditor: `critical` - The plan assumes tracing infrastructure already exists, but the user confirmed OpenTelemetry is not in use today.

## Requirement Gaps

None.

## Audit Summary

| Category                  | Critical | Warning | Info |
| ------------------------- | -------- | ------- | ---- |
| Requirements Traceability | 1        | 0       | 2    |
| YAGNI Compliance          | 1        | 1       | 1    |
| Assumption Audit          | 1        | 0       | 1    |

Confidence is high for the out-of-scope findings because the baseline request is short and explicit. The only initially ambiguous area was tracing infrastructure, and user clarification resolved it.

## Resolved Assumptions

- Question: Is OpenTelemetry currently in use, or would this plan introduce it for the first time?
- User answer summary: OpenTelemetry is not currently deployed for this service.
- Result: the assumptions finding for `Step 3: Add observability` was finalized as `critical`.

## Open Questions

- Should circuit breaker functionality be treated as a follow-up idea instead of part of the current retry plan?

## Sensitive Content Handling

- No sensitive literals were needed in the report.
- The report uses sanitized section summaries instead of reproducing the source plan.