Recovery Guide¶

Guide Maps¶

graph LR
  family["Reproducible Research"]
  program["Deep Dive DVC"]
  guide["Capstone docs"]
  section["Docs"]
  page["Recovery Guide"]
  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"]

Recovery is easy to talk about loosely and hard to evaluate honestly. Use this guide when the question is not just whether dvc pull works, but what a successful restore actually proves.

What the recovery drill proves¶

tracked state can be restored after local cache loss
the promoted publish bundle can be validated after restore
the remote is part of the repository's durable story, not an optional convenience

What the recovery drill does not prove¶

that the publish bundle is the full internal state story
that experiments remain semantically comparable
that every local convenience file is reproducible or durable

Good route¶

run make recovery-drill when you want the raw restore rehearsal
run make recovery-review when you want a durable bundle for later inspection
read remote.txt, before-status.txt, pull.txt, checkout.txt, verify.json, and after-status.txt in that order
read publish-v1/manifest.json and the release summaries when the next question is downstream trust after restore

Read Publish Contract when the main confusion is not the recovery sequence itself but which promoted files still deserve downstream trust after restore.