DocumentationEngagement reference

Game Infrastructure Engagement Boundaries

A reference for scoping build, source-flow, builder, artifact, server-delivery, and studio-utility work without turning discovery into an open-ended rewrite.

Last reviewed
Version
1.0
  • discovery
  • delivery boundaries
  • operating model

Game infrastructure work becomes expensive when every nearby problem is treated as part of the same project. A useful engagement begins with one observable delivery outcome and makes the system boundary explicit.

Boundary model#

Use six boundaries to map the work. Not every engagement needs all six.

BoundaryQuestions to answerTypical evidence
Source flowWhich changes may enter a build or release branch, and who resolves conflicts?stream or branch policy, integration queue, review rules
Build definitionWhich declared inputs produce each target?build graph, scripts, engine/toolchain versions
Builder runtimeHow is worker capacity created, replaced, secured, and observed?image/provisioning source, runtime identity, health signals
Cache and artifactWhat is reusable state, what is release evidence, and how is each retained?cache policy, artifact manifest, checksums, retention rules
PromotionWhat proves a candidate is compatible and safe to distribute?smoke evidence, compatibility ID, approval and rollback boundary
Operational handoffWho owns failures after delivery, and what can they recover without the implementer?runbook, alerts, ownership map, recovery exercise

Discovery outputs#

Discovery should produce decisions, not a generic audit deck. The minimum useful output is:

  1. a current-state delivery-path diagram;
  2. the primary failure mode and its operational cost;
  3. a written input/output contract for the affected boundary;
  4. the proposed change, explicit non-goals, and owner;
  5. acceptance tests and recovery tests;
  6. dependencies, access requirements, and rollback plan.

If the team cannot agree on the failure mode or acceptance test, implementation is premature.

What stays out of scope by default#

Unless the agreed outcome requires it, the following are separate decisions:

  • replacing the studio’s CI orchestrator;
  • redesigning all streams or branches;
  • migrating every builder at once;
  • changing engine versions;
  • rewriting game code to accommodate infrastructure;
  • replacing DCC tools;
  • assuming permanent production operations;
  • broad cloud-cost work unrelated to the delivery path.

A bounded project may expose one of these as the next bottleneck. That creates a new decision, not silent scope expansion.

Access and safety#

Begin read-only whenever possible. Write access should be time-bounded, attributable, and limited to the system under change. Production credentials do not belong in build definitions, images, documentation, or handoff bundles.

Before changing a shared delivery path, record:

  • current owners and escalation path;
  • affected teams and release windows;
  • backup or rollback mechanism;
  • protected branches, streams, artifacts, and environments;
  • how success and failure will be observed.

Acceptance contract#

An engagement is complete when the agreed outcome is observable and the studio can operate the result. Typical acceptance evidence includes:

  • a clean worker produces the expected target from declared inputs;
  • failed capacity can be replaced through the documented path;
  • artifacts carry source and compatibility identity;
  • incompatible client/server candidates cannot promote together;
  • the highest-risk handoff has an owner, check, and recovery runbook;
  • a studio operator completes the recovery exercise without hidden implementer state.

Handoff checklist#

  • Architecture and delivery-path diagrams match the implemented system.
  • Build, promotion, and recovery commands are versioned.
  • Runtime credentials are external to source and images.
  • Dashboards and alerts identify an owner and expected response.
  • Known limitations and deferred boundaries are explicit.
  • The studio has a tested rollback or replacement path.
  • Follow-up ownership and support duration are written down.

The purpose of the boundary is not paperwork. It keeps the work attached to a result the studio can verify, recover, and own.