Monitoring System Capstone Docs

Guide Maps

graph LR
  family["Python Programming"]
  program["Python Object-Oriented Programming"]
  guide["Capstone docs"]
  section["Docs"]
  page["Monitoring System Capstone Docs"]
  proof["Proof route"]

  family --> program --> guide --> section --> page
  page -.checks against.-> proof

flowchart LR
  orient["Read the guide boundary"] --> inspect["Inspect the named files, targets, or artifacts"]
  inspect --> run["Run the confirm, demo, selftest, or proof command"]
  run --> compare["Compare output with the stated contract"]
  compare --> review["Return to the course claim with evidence"]

flowchart TD
  entry["Capstone entry"] --> index["INDEX"]
  index --> arrival["Arrival route"]
  index --> ownership["Ownership route"]
  index --> proof["Proof route"]
  index --> scenario["Scenario route"]
  index --> course["Course-stage route"]
  index --> change["Extension route"]

flowchart TD
  question["State the question you have"] --> section["Pick the matching guide group"]
  section --> file["Open one next guide"]
  file --> narrow["Keep the route narrow until the question changes"]

Use this page when you know the capstone is the right place to look but you still need the smallest honest route into it. It combines the old arrival pages and the course-stage map so the capstone has one stable entry hub instead of several overlapping starts.

First honest pass

1. Read README.md.
2. Read DOMAIN_GUIDE.md.
3. Read ARCHITECTURE.md.
4. Run make demo.
5. Read DOMAIN_GUIDE.md or ARCHITECTURE.md, depending on whether the pressure is lifecycle or collaboration.
6. Stop there unless you already have a specific proof question.

If you only need one next file

• "What does this system model?" -> README.md
• "Which boundary owns this behavior?" -> ARCHITECTURE.md
• "Which scenario shows this pressure?" -> DOMAIN_GUIDE.md
• "Which command or saved bundle should I use?" -> COMMAND_GUIDE.md
• "Where should a change land?" -> EXTENSION_GUIDE.md

Route groups

• Arrival route: README.md, DOMAIN_GUIDE.md, ARCHITECTURE.md
• Ownership route: ARCHITECTURE.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, PACKAGE_GUIDE.md
• Proof route: COMMAND_GUIDE.md, PROOF_GUIDE.md, TEST_GUIDE.md, TOUR.md
• Scenario route: DOMAIN_GUIDE.md, DOMAIN_GUIDE.md, ARCHITECTURE.md
• Extension route: EXTENSION_GUIDE.md, COMMAND_GUIDE.md

Guide map

• Architecture Guide
• Monitoring System Command Guide
• Domain Guide
• Extension Guide
• Package Guide
• Proof Guide
• Test Guide
• Tour Guide
• Walkthrough Guide

Route by course stage

Course stage	Start here	Then inspect	Best command
Semantic floor	src/service_monitoring/model.py	tests/test_policy_lifecycle.py, PACKAGE_GUIDE.md, and the default scenario	make inspect
Collaboration and evolution	ARCHITECTURE.md	runtime.py, repository.py, read_models.py, and the retirement scenario	make verify-report
Trust and governance	PROOF_GUIDE.md	saved bundles, TEST_GUIDE.md, EXTENSION_GUIDE.md, and the rate-of-change scenario	make confirm or make proof

Good stopping point

Stop when you can answer:

• what object is authoritative for rule lifecycle and alert creation
• which artifacts are derived views rather than the source of truth
• which local command you should use next, and why it is the smallest honest route