[daily regulatory] Regulatory Report - February 17, 2026 #16432
Closed
Replies: 2 comments
-
|
This report has been superseded by a newer daily regulatory report for February 18, 2026. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
This report has been superseded by a newer daily regulatory report. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Analyzed 34 daily report discussions from the last 48 hours (February 16-17, 2026), covering 15 distinct report categories. Overall data quality is excellent with a consistency score of 95/100. All cross-report metrics align with their documented scopes per
scratchpad/metrics-glossary.md, with zero true discrepancies detected. The repository demonstrates strong security posture (100% redaction coverage, 100% safe-output success rate) and healthy development metrics (73.8/100 code quality, 2.15:1 test ratio).Key Finding: Discussion engagement identified as the only process gap (0% answer rate), already flagged in Performance Summary report for remediation.
📊 Reports Reviewed
Total Reports: 34 discussions analyzed
Timeframe: February 16-17, 2026 (48-hour window)
Data Quality Score: 95/100 (Excellent)
🔍 Data Consistency Analysis
Reference:
scratchpad/metrics-glossary.mdfor standardized metric definitions and scopes.Cross-Report Metrics Comparison
Scope Notes
Expected Scope Differences (per
metrics-glossary.md):total_issuesandtotal_prs: Performance Summary uses sampled data (tool caps at 1,000 issues and 200 PRs). This is documented behavior and not a discrepancy.workflow_runs_analyzed: Firewall Report analyzes 7-day period, Safe Output Health analyzes 24-hour period. Different time windows are intentional per respective report requirements.Issues scopes: Different reports analyze different issue subsets:
Consistency Score
Validation: All numeric comparisons for metrics with identical scopes pass mathematical validation. No true data inconsistencies detected.
📋 Detailed Metric Extraction
Performance Summary (#16428)
Report Date: February 17, 2026
Time Period: Last 90 days
Quality: ✅ Valid
Extracted Metrics:
Internal Validation:
Notes:
Code Metrics (#16329)
Report Date: February 17, 2026
Time Period: 7-day and 30-day windows
Quality: ✅ Valid
Extracted Metrics:
Internal Validation:
Notes:
Firewall Report (#16274)
Report Date: February 17, 2026
Time Period: Last 7 days
Quality: ✅ Valid
Extracted Metrics:
Internal Validation:
Notes:
Safe Output Health (#16285)
Report Date: February 17, 2026
Time Period: Last 24 hours
Quality: ✅ Valid
Extracted Metrics:
Internal Validation:
Notes:
noop(5 executions)Secrets Analysis (#16431)
Report Date: February 17, 2026
Time Period: Current state
Quality: ✅ Valid
Extracted Metrics:
Security Posture:
Notes:
GITHUB_TOKEN(1,621 occurrences)Process Gaps (Not Data Issues)
1. Discussion Engagement Gap
metrics-glossary.md)Data Quality Notes
1. Sampling Limitations (Expected)
2. Time Window Variations (Expected)
metrics-glossary.md📈 Cross-Report Validation Summary
Validation Rules Applied (per regulatory guidelines):
scratchpad/metrics-glossary.mdResults:
💡 Recommendations
✅ Data Quality (Maintain Current Practices)
metrics-glossary.md- keep as reference standardDiscussion Engagement:
Metric Extraction Automation:
📊 Regulatory Metrics
Report Generation Details:
github/gh-awscratchpad/metrics-glossary.mdConclusion: All daily reports demonstrate excellent data quality with no true discrepancies detected. The regulatory analysis validates that all metric variations are intentional scope differences as documented in the metrics glossary. The only identified gap (discussion engagement) is a process issue already flagged for improvement in the Performance Summary report.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions