Moving INC-14 to the hand-approved path once the real run came back with medium confidence was the right call, and it makes the tour more convincing, since reviewers watch the policy gate actually doing its job. The piece I'd keep an eye on over time is the 3-minute video. The static site rebuilds from the same codebase on every change, but the video stays exactly as it was on the day of the EKS run. Putting the commit it was recorded from in the video description, and linking that from the banner, would let a reviewer tell whether a difference between video and click-through is a new feature or just an older recording.
Noting the commit SHA in the video description is a great idea since the application will likely continue to evolve, outpacing what's seen in the video. Thank you for the suggestion.
The dual-build separation check is the detail I would steal for any demo. Proving the production build has no mock code, and the demo has no real data, removes the two risks people usually worry about with a click-through demo.
DemoVexa
Moving INC-14 to the hand-approved path once the real run came back with medium confidence was the right call, and it makes the tour more convincing, since reviewers watch the policy gate actually doing its job. The piece I'd keep an eye on over time is the 3-minute video. The static site rebuilds from the same codebase on every change, but the video stays exactly as it was on the day of the EKS run. Putting the commit it was recorded from in the video description, and linking that from the banner, would let a reviewer tell whether a difference between video and click-through is a new feature or just an older recording.