NAVV Maturity Assessment - 2026-05-08
NAVV Maturity Assessment — 2026-05-08
Type: P3 Maturity Artefact — Stage 1
Prepared by: Sonnet (Sub-agent Manager)
Commissioned: Missive NAVV-2026-05-08 — Stage 1 of P3 scaffolding
Sentinel authority: Brian (Maturity pillar)
Reference: P3 Minimum Viable Maturity
Purpose
This document provides an honest, practice-level capability profile of NAVV as of 2026-05-08. It sets the ceiling for safe governance complexity and calibrates the Strategy Sieve against Brian's revised Direction Statement.
Maturity is the boundary of reliable execution. What we assess here is not what we aspire to — it is what we can sustain repeatedly, by both founders, under ordinary conditions.
Maturity Scale Used
| Level | Name | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| L1 | Initial (Ad-hoc) | Inconsistent; outcomes depend on specific individuals; not teachable from materials alone |
| L2 | Managed (Repeatable) | Documented; broadly consistent outcomes; a new practitioner can onboard from materials |
| L3 | Defined (Standardised) | Embedded in tooling or infrastructure that enforces consistency without relying on individual discipline |
| L4 | Measured (Managed) | Instrumented; performance data collected and reviewed; degradation detectable before failure |
Ratchet Teeth convert capability gains into permanent features:
| Tooth | Mechanism | Holds against |
|---|---|---|
| T1 | Documentation | Ignorance and turnover |
| T2 | Tooling | Forgetfulness and drift |
| T3 | Governance | Pressure and exception-creep |
| T4 | Culture | Time and leadership change |
Practice Capability Profile
Andrew-Sentinel Domains (Principle, Product, Strategy)
| Practice Area | Level | Ratchet Tooth | Evidence | Gap to Next Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Requirements capture | L2 | T2 | NbLM intake cycle is structured (threshold criteria) and tooled (notebook_query protocol documented in CLAUDE.md) | Automated threshold detection (currently LLM-assessed, not script-verified) |
| Product design and intent | L1–L2 | T1 | v7 HTML prototype exists as working artefact; no formal product brief yet | Formal product brief (Stage 3) will advance to L2 |
| Strategic direction | L1 | T1 | Direction Statement drafted and approved (2026-05-08); previously implicit in CLAUDE.md | Formal Direction Statement (Stage 4) in place; needs a review cadence to reach L2 |
Brian-Sentinel Domains (Pattern, Maturity, Governance)
| Practice Area | Level | Ratchet Tooth | Evidence | Gap to Next Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workflow pattern recognition | L1–L2 | T1 | Intake, ingestion, and review cycles are documented in CLAUDE.md; not yet formally named as P3 patterns | Formal pattern documentation in Patterns/ folder |
| Product-facing market patterns | L1 | T0 | Not yet identified or extracted; acknowledged as a distinct domain in Brian's feedback | Extraction via P3 filter in NbLM (Part 2 of impact assessment) |
| Maturity assessment | L1 → T1 | T1 (this document) | No formal assessment prior to today | Regular cadence (annual minimum) needed to reach L2 |
| Operational governance | L2 | T2 | Missive protocol documented AND tooled (freeze-line, Questions Log, .claude/commands/); consistently enacted | Formal six-element governance structures (Stage 5) would advance to L3 |
Cross-Cutting Domains
| Practice Area | Level | Ratchet Tooth | Evidence | Gap to Next Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content development (wiki ingestion) | L2 | T1–T2 | RS ingestion workflow documented; registry.py handles structural tasks | End-to-end automated verification (Phase F script-based QA) |
| Quality assurance | L1–L2 | T1–T2 | registry.py handles structural QA; content QA is LLM-assessed | Script-based verification per P3 Experiment Lessons (reduce LLM QA) |
| Delivery pipeline (NbLM) | L1 | T1 | source_add protocol documented; no automated pipeline | Automated delivery trigger is a Grow priority, not Now |
| Review and iteration | L2 | T2 | Missive-driven review cycle consistently applied; freeze-line mechanism enforced | No identified blocker — sustained practice will reach L3 with tooling |
Frontier Summary
Inside the capability frontier (reliable execution):
- Structured requirements capture via NbLM
- Wiki content development (RS ingestion workflow)
- Operational governance (Missive protocol, freeze-line)
- Structural quality assurance (registry.py)
- Review and iteration (Missive-driven)
At the capability boundary (heroic effort required):
- Product design formalisation (brief templates not yet populated)
- Multi-notebook workflow management (not yet implemented)
- Workflow pattern documentation (identified but not yet formally named)
Outside the current frontier (capability does not yet exist):
- Market-facing product pattern identification (requires NbLM filter extraction)
- Automated delivery pipeline
- Cross-notebook portfolio management
- Seed fundraising processes
Strategy Sieve — Calibration Against Direction Statement
Applying the Now / Grow / Recalibrate sieve to the strategic elements in Brian's approved Direction Statement (2026-05-08):
| Strategic Element | Sieve | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Distributed P3 governance model | Grow | Implementation is the scaffolding work now underway; Ratchet schedule = Stages 0–5 |
| Testing existing products (PST, NDIS-Wiki) | Now | Both products are active; content development and iteration capability is at L2 |
| Andrew's market-facing sentinel role (formal) | Grow | Andrew has domain expertise; formal sentinel structure (Stages 2–3) is the Ratchet schedule |
| Brian's operational sentinel role (formal) | Now | Missive protocol and governance structures at L2; sentinel authority is enacted |
| Testing new product vectors (Andrew's expansion) | Grow | New notebooks/products require notebook registry and multi-notebook workflow not yet in place |
| Seeking seed funding | Recalibrate | No fundraising capability, business narrative, or investor documentation exists; this is a future strategic objective, not a current executable |
Recalibrate finding — seed funding: Seeking seed funding requires capabilities NAVV does not currently have: a formalised business narrative, investor-ready documentation, and fundraising process. The Direction Statement acknowledges this as a direction of travel, not a current commitment. No action needed now — but this finding should be revisited when product validation is complete. Recalibrate does not mean abandon.
Next Maturity Review
Recommended: Annual review minimum, triggered additionally by:
- Any significant change to NAVV's operational structure
- Launch of a new product (new notebook)
- Completion of Stage 5 (governance structures formalised)
Artefact status: Active — first formal maturity assessment. Supersedes any informal estimates.