# 06. Risk Assessment ## 1. Risk Scoring Method - Probability: 1 (low) to 5 (high) - Impact: 1 (low) to 5 (high) - Risk score = Probability x Impact ## 2. Top Risks | ID | Risk | Prob | Impact | Score | Mitigation | Contingency Trigger | |---|---|---:|---:|---:|---|---| | R1 | Secret exfiltration via unredacted outbound payload | 3 | 5 | 15 | Multi-layer redaction tests, egress deny-by-default policy, seeded canary secrets | Any unredacted canary secret seen outside tenant | | R2 | Command gating bypass due misclassification | 3 | 5 | 15 | Deterministic policy engine, contract tests per class, human-readable reason logging | Red/Critical executes without approval in tests | | R3 | OpenClaw upstream changes break plugin behavior | 3 | 4 | 12 | Pin stable tags, adapter compatibility suite, staged upgrade canaries | Hook contract test fails against new tag | | R4 | Provisioner regressions reduce provisioning success | 4 | 4 | 16 | Idempotent checkpoints, replay tests, synthetic VPS CI | First-attempt success < 90% | | R5 | Billing usage mismatch vs provider costs | 3 | 4 | 12 | Dual-entry usage checks, nightly reconciliation jobs, alert thresholds | >1% sustained variance for 24h | | R6 | Mobile approval notification delays/drop | 3 | 3 | 9 | Push retries + in-app queue fallback + email fallback | p95 approval notify > 30s | | R7 | Performance overhead exceeds Lite-tier budget | 2 | 4 | 8 | Memory profiling budget gates, disable non-essential plugins, tune browser lifecycle | LetsBe overhead > 800MB sustained | | R8 | Tool API churn breaks adapters | 4 | 3 | 12 | Adapter integration tests against pinned versions, fallback to browser playbook | Adapter failure rate > 5% | | R9 | Security debt from AI-generated code quality | 4 | 4 | 16 | Mandatory senior review on security modules, lint rules, banned patterns checks | Critical static-analysis finding unresolved >48h | | R10 | Legal/compliance drift (license/source disclosure pages) | 2 | 4 | 8 | Automated license manifest publishing, pre-release legal checklist | Missing OSS disclosure page at RC freeze | ## 3. Risk Register By Domain ## 3.1 Security Risks - Redaction misses non-standard secret formats. - External comms gate incorrectly tied to autonomy level. - Local logs/transcripts persist raw secret material. - Local execution adapters allow shell metacharacter bypass. ## 3.2 Delivery Risks - Too much simultaneous change across Hub + provisioner + tenant runtime. - Underestimated migration effort from deprecated orchestrator/sysadmin behaviors. - Browser automation migration complexity for setup scripts. ## 3.3 Operational Risks - Dual-region Hub operations increase DB and deploy complexity. - Insufficient on-call runbooks for approval outages and provisioning failures. - Canary rollout without automated rollback criteria. ## 4. Mitigation Program ## 4.1 Pre-Launch Controls - Security invariants are encoded as executable tests (not checklist-only). - Every release candidate must pass redaction canary probes. - Dry-run provisioning must pass on both Netcup and Hetzner targets. ## 4.2 Runtime Controls - Alert on heartbeat freshness degradation. - Alert on approval queue lag and expiration spikes. - Alert on sudden drop in cache-read ratio (cost anomaly indicator). ## 4.3 Governance Controls - Security design review required for changes in Safety Wrapper, redaction, or secrets flows. - Migration freeze on deprecated paths after Phase 0. - Weekly risk review with updated probability/impact re-scoring. ## 5. Launch Go/No-Go Risk Gates No launch if any condition is true: - unresolved severity-1 security defect - redaction tests fail for any supported secret class - command gating matrix not fully passing - usage reconciliation error >1% over 72h canary - provisioning first-attempt success below 85% in final week