Pull the business side (Kelly) into the FIPS 6.18 CAVP-retrigger vs fork call

Situation

Justin flagged that upstream 6.18 LT landed hundreds of CVEs/fixes touching the crypto code being FIPS-certified, forcing a choice between re-triggering CAVP (risking the 8/8 Google delivery) or forking/reverting the kernel (a growing maintenance burden). Justin was inclined to retrigger CAVP and risk the timeline. Peter did not make the technical call himself - he decided the business side must be convened, with Kelly Hall involved, because the choice puts the Google 8/8 delivery at risk.

Reasoning

Retrigger-vs-fork is genuinely Justin technical call, and Peter signaled he backs it (perfect). But the consequence - slipping 8/8 for Google - is a business/contract decision that cannot be made inside engineering. So Peter convenes Kelly, who owns the Google relationship, rather than let engineering absorb a timeline-risk decision that is not theirs. Consistent with how Peter is handling all of Google now: engineering owns the technical right answer, business owns the timeline/commercial trade-off.

Additional Context

Peter confirmed the framing. Attribution guardrail: the loggable Peter decision is convening the business side, NOT the CAVP-retrigger call itself (that is Justin). Justin noted this will recur over 6.18 life, so this establishes the escalation path. ESV cert also slipping, compounding 8/8 risk.

Observed Evidence

Justin: inclined to retrigger CAVP and risk the timeline. Peter: We need to pull the business side together for a conversation on this. Kelly should be involved. perfect. please let me know if there are any questions.

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis