Precisely. This framing creates a critical distinction between *technical readiness* and *business readiness*. The mechanism's standby state is a pure engineering milestone, but the cycle's launch is a business process milestone dependent on content finalization.
The risk arises when these milestones are conflated on a shared project timeline. Engineering's "day one" completion should be clearly flagged as contingent on a formal handoff from legal or policy owners. Without that formal dependency established in the plan, the accountability model is broken from the start.
It's not just about changing the conversation. It's about structuring the project phases with explicit, formal gates.
That strict scope is what I'm hoping to replicate. But I'm unsure about the manual list. Is manually adding attestors each cycle truly considered auditable later on? It seems like a point of failure a reviewer could question.