Product Roadmap¶

Document status: Planning baseline; not a committed delivery schedule.
Product: WhiteLotus AI · Organization: Whitelotus Corporation
Document owner: Product Owner / Engineering · Approval: Pending
Roadmap verification: Proposed workstreams require prioritization and evidence-based tracking.
Target releases: Unplanned unless explicitly approved.

1. Purpose¶

This roadmap establishes proposed workstreams for developing, verifying, securing, and operating WhiteLotus AI. It communicates intended outcomes, dependencies, and acceptance criteria without implying that work has been approved, scheduled, implemented, or released.

A roadmap item becomes a delivery commitment only after its priority, owner, dependencies, acceptance criteria, and target release have been reviewed and approved.

2. Roadmap principles¶

1. Security before expansion. Resolve critical authorization and integration-policy gaps before adding capabilities.
2. Read-only by default. The initial provider integration scope is limited to approved read operations.
3. Evidence over assumptions. Completion requires test results, review records, or other appropriate verification evidence.
4. Incremental delivery. Break broad objectives into small, independently verifiable work items.
5. Explicit dependencies. Do not mark dependent work ready when required security, infrastructure, or provider configuration remains unresolved.
6. Operational readiness. Consider deployment, monitoring, recovery, and support requirements alongside feature development.
7. Controlled scope. New providers and write-capable functionality require explicit product and security approval.
8. Traceability. Link roadmap items to requirements, issues, pull requests, test results, and release records where applicable.

3. Priority model¶

The following priority scale is proposed and requires product-owner approval. Assign a priority to each tracked item; appearance in this roadmap does not automatically schedule work.

4. Proposed workstreams¶

The workstreams below define outcomes and evidence. They are not assigned delivery dates or approved release commitments.

Workstream A — Documentation and engineering baseline¶

Objective: Maintain an accurate, navigable, and verifiable product documentation baseline.

Proposed activities

• Maintain source-of-truth documentation for product requirements, architecture, APIs, integrations, security, testing, deployment, and operations.
• Assign ownership and review expectations to important documentation pages.
• Document supported runtimes, dependencies, configuration, and deployment procedures based on verified implementation.
• Integrate strict documentation validation into continuous integration where supported.
• Identify placeholders, unverified claims, outdated instructions, and unresolved documentation findings.
• Establish traceability between requirements, implementation changes, tests, and releases.

Dependencies

• Access to the current source repository and build configuration.
• Agreement on documentation ownership and review responsibilities.
• A defined continuous-integration process.

Acceptance criteria

• Required documentation pages exist and are linked from the navigation.
• The strict documentation build passes.
• Implementation-specific claims are verified or explicitly labelled as unverified.
• Documentation findings have an owner or documented disposition.
• The process for updating documentation with code changes is defined.

Completion evidence: Build output, documentation review record, and links to resolved findings.

Workstream B — Security and read-only integration enforcement¶

Objective: Establish and verify a strict read-only boundary for all initial provider integrations.

Initial providers: Google Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Drive, Jira, Slack, and Microsoft Teams.

Proposed activities

• Inventory registered tools, integration routes, provider clients, OAuth scopes, and token-resolution paths.
• Define an explicit allowlist of permitted read operations for each provider.
• Identify write-capable, destructive, and state-changing tools and routes.
• Deny prohibited operations independently of natural-language intent, planner output, or model-generated confirmation claims.
• Review OAuth scopes and remove unnecessary write permissions where provider behavior permits.
• Verify user identity propagation, connection ownership, token refresh, and internal-service authentication.
• Add negative tests for direct route invocation, direct tool dispatch, adversarial planner output, and missing authorization evidence.
• Record unresolved findings and link them to remediation work.

Dependencies

• Approved read-only policy.
• Complete inventory of integration entry points and tools.
• Provider test accounts and required OAuth configuration.
• Automated integration and security test environments.

Acceptance criteria

• All six providers have documented read-operation allowlists.
• Prohibited operations are denied through tool dispatch and applicable API routes.
• Model-generated content cannot grant authorization or satisfy trusted confirmation requirements.
• Per-user authorization and connection-isolation tests pass.
• Provider scopes are reviewed against the approved operation inventory.
• Required negative tests pass and their results are recorded.
• No unresolved release-blocking read-only enforcement findings remain.

Completion evidence: Provider capability matrix, scope review, test reports, security review, and linked remediation records.

Workstream C — AI orchestration and safety¶

Objective: Improve the reliability, predictability, and security of intent routing and tool execution.

Proposed activities

• Document the orchestration graph, supported transitions, planner inputs and outputs, and failure paths.
• Define and validate schemas for planner output and tool arguments.
• Test ambiguous, unsupported, contradictory, malformed, and adversarial requests.
• Keep authorization and confirmation decisions within trusted application logic.
• Establish regression cases for provider selection, intent classification, and tool selection.
• Verify safe behavior when a required tool is unavailable or a provider returns an error.
• Measure routing accuracy and task success using a reproducible evaluation set.

Dependencies

• Stable tool registry and authorization policy.
• Documented supported intents and expected tool behavior.
• Representative evaluation prompts and expected outcomes.
• Test infrastructure for repeatable evaluations.

Acceptance criteria

• Planner output is validated before it can trigger a protected operation.
• Unsupported and ambiguous requests produce controlled responses or clarification requests.
• Unauthorized and prohibited operations are denied.
• Routing regression tests produce recorded results.
• Evaluation metrics and acceptance thresholds are approved before being used as release gates.
• Failures do not expose credentials or bypass authorization boundaries.

Completion evidence: Orchestration documentation, regression reports, evaluation results, and security-test records.

Workstream D — Knowledge base and retrieval quality¶

Objective: Verify secure document ingestion and useful, access-controlled retrieval from the knowledge base.

Proposed activities

• Document supported file types, ingestion stages, chunking, indexing, retrieval, and answer-generation behavior.
• Verify file validation and handling of unsupported or malformed documents.
• Test retrieval quality using a representative question-and-answer evaluation set.
• Verify that document access restrictions are applied during retrieval and answer generation.
• Test empty indexes, failed ingestion, unavailable storage, and retrieval errors.
• Define approved document retention, deletion, and re-indexing behavior.
• Establish repeatable measurements for retrieval quality, latency, and resource usage.

Dependencies

• Approved document-handling and access-control policies.
• Representative documents and evaluation questions.
• Available database, embedding, and retrieval infrastructure.
• Agreed quality and performance measurement methods.

Acceptance criteria

• Supported file types and processing limits are documented and tested.
• Failed ingestion is not reported as successful.
• Retrieval results are evaluated against an approved test set.
• Cross-user and unauthorized-document retrieval tests pass.
• Retention and deletion expectations are documented and approved.
• Performance and retrieval-quality results are recorded against approved targets.

Completion evidence: Ingestion and retrieval test reports, access-control results, evaluation dataset, and approved data-handling requirements.

Workstream E — Deployment and operations¶

Objective: Establish a reproducible deployment process and evidence-based operational readiness.

Proposed activities

• Document actual Docker Compose services, ports, dependencies, environment variables, and persistent storage.
• Validate required configuration and secret-management practices.
• Establish health-check expectations and dependency-failure behavior.
• Define logging, monitoring, incident ownership, and escalation procedures.
• Document database backup, restoration, and recovery responsibilities.
• Establish rollback and post-deployment verification procedures.
• Measure resource consumption under representative workloads on supported deployment environments.
• Define and approve latency, capacity, availability, and recovery targets.

Dependencies

• Verified deployment configuration.
• Access to representative deployment environments.
• Defined service ownership and operational responsibilities.
• Approved resource budgets and reliability targets.

Acceptance criteria

• Deployment succeeds using documented procedures in the supported environment.
• Missing or invalid required configuration fails safely.
• Health checks provide meaningful service status.
• Logs support troubleshooting without exposing secrets.
• Backup and restoration procedures have been tested where applicable.
• Rollback and post-deployment verification steps are documented.
• Resource measurements and non-functional test results are recorded.
• Operational targets and ownership are approved.

Completion evidence: Deployment records, health-check results, resource measurements, recovery test reports, and operational runbooks.

Workstream F — API and integration contract quality¶

Objective: Ensure documented interfaces behave consistently and fail safely.

Proposed activities

• Maintain an inventory of public and internal API routes.
• Verify authentication, authorization, request schemas, and response contracts.
• Define consistent error handling for validation failures, upstream errors, timeouts, and unavailable dependencies.
• Test pagination, date boundaries, request limits, and malformed inputs where applicable.
• Verify streaming behavior and client-disconnection handling where supported.
• Maintain API documentation alongside relevant implementation changes.

Dependencies

• Current API inventory.
• Approved request and response contracts.
• Test environments for application services and provider integrations.

Acceptance criteria

• Documented endpoints match verified implementation behavior.
• Invalid requests are rejected before protected operations execute.
• Error responses do not leak sensitive provider or internal details.
• Applicable limits and boundary conditions are tested.
• API contract tests pass for the approved release scope.

Completion evidence: API inventory, contract-test reports, error-handling tests, and documentation review.

5. Proposed execution sequence¶

The sequence below expresses dependencies, not a committed schedule. Work may proceed in parallel where dependencies permit, but parallel work must not bypass a security gate or imply that a dependent capability is release-ready.

flowchart TD
    A(["Requirements and Documentation Baseline"])
    B["Security and Read-Only Enforcement"]
    C["API and Orchestration Reliability"]
    D["Knowledge-Base Verification"]
    E["Deployment and Operational Readiness"]
    F["Release Review"]
    G(["Future Enhancements Through Change Control"])

    A --> B
    B --> C
    C --> D
    C --> E
    D --> F
    E --> F
    F --> G

    %% Pastel fills with colored outlines for the reference design.
    classDef baseline fill:#EDE9FE,stroke:#7C3AED,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#3B267A
    classDef security fill:#FCE8E6,stroke:#DC2626,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#7F1D1D
    classDef reliability fill:#E0F7FA,stroke:#0891B2,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#164E63
    classDef verification fill:#FFF2CC,stroke:#D97706,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#7C3E00
    classDef release fill:#DDF5E5,stroke:#059669,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#16452B
    classDef future fill:#E8F0FE,stroke:#2563EB,stroke-width:1.5px,color:#23345B

    class A baseline
    class B security
    class C reliability
    class D verification
    class E,F release
    class G future

    %% Neutral connectors for dark and light theme compatibility.
    linkStyle default stroke:#9CA3AF,stroke-width:1.3px

6. Roadmap item tracking template¶

Create a separate tracked item for each independently deliverable objective. Use this template in the issue tracker or project management system; the Markdown block is a starting point, not a substitute for a maintained tracking record.

id: WL-SEC-001
title: Enforce read-only integration allowlist
user_outcome: Prevent provider data from being changed outside the approved initial scope.
related_requirement_ids: []
priority: P0 | P1 | P2 | P3
owner: Unassigned
dependencies: []
acceptance_criteria: []
verification_evidence: []
risks: []
target_release: Unplanned
status: Proposed
last_reviewed: YYYY-MM-DD
references: []

Status guidance¶

7. Risks and roadmap controls¶

These are planning risks, not assertions that every listed failure has occurred. Confirmed defects should have separate records containing reproducible evidence and remediation ownership.

8. Governance and review cadence¶

The Product Owner and Engineering owner should approve the roadmap review cadence.

Review the roadmap:

• At the agreed planning interval.
• When a critical security finding affects release readiness.
• When provider APIs, permissions, or OAuth requirements change materially.
• When product scope, architecture, or deployment assumptions change.
• Before committing to a target release.
• Before marking a release-blocking item complete.

Each review should record decisions, changed priorities, owners, dependencies, deferred work, and target-release changes.

Roadmap changes must not silently remove security requirements or weaken acceptance criteria. Changes affecting read-only enforcement, authorization, privacy, or release acceptance require the appropriate security and product review.

9. Definition of done¶

A roadmap item is complete only when:

1. Its scope and acceptance criteria are clear.
2. Required dependencies have been satisfied or formally resolved.
3. The implementation or deliverable is available for review.
4. Required tests and reviews have been executed.
5. Verification evidence is recorded and linked.
6. Known limitations and remaining risks are documented.
7. Required approvals have been obtained.
8. Related requirements and documentation have been updated.
9. The final status reflects evidence rather than an assumption.

For release-blocking security and read-only work, an unresolved acceptance failure prevents completion of the affected release gate unless an explicitly authorized exception applies.

10. Roadmap approval¶

This roadmap is a controlled planning document. It does not certify implementation completeness, integration correctness, security compliance, or release approval.

11. Document maintenance¶

Review this page when product scope, security policy, integrations, architecture, APIs, deployment assumptions, or release criteria change. Keep roadmap claims consistent with the product requirements, feature catalogue, security policy, testing records, and actual tracked work.

Update roadmap status only when the relevant decision or evidence exists. Link material changes to the responsible issue, review record, or release decision.

Related documentation¶