ai.04 · Scenario S3

SLA-Adjacent Runtime Operation

Control oscillation effects in production systems operating chronically near SLA boundaries with multiple reactive control mechanisms.

Scenario Definition

System Class

Production system operating chronically near SLA boundaries with multiple reactive control mechanisms

Scale

Control oscillation-dominated regime with accelerating compensatory actions

Operational Mode

Latency-sensitive serving with SLA-driven reactive control

Control Dynamics

Oscillating compensation patterns with declining planning confidence

Recognition Pattern

Your SLA breaches are rare but increasing, your control systems show constant activity, yet each optimization attempt seems to create new edge cases. Capacity additions provide diminishing returns.

Structural Observations

The problem emerges from the timing interaction of correct control responses, not from incorrect control logic.

  • Control loops responding to the same SLA pressure with different time constants create oscillating rather than converging behavior
  • Compensatory actions taken to maintain SLA consume the margins that would provide genuine safety
  • SLA-adjacent operation triggers continuous control activity that masks the gradual erosion of stability reserves
  • Capacity additions are consumed by control overhead rather than creating genuine headroom

Stability Projection

Baseline

Oscillating
Reserve: Consumed by Oscillation

With Structural Control

Dampened
Reserve: Preserved

Transition type: Oscillation dampening via temporal alignment

Aggregated Metrics

Normalized ratios without absolute units. Baseline values crossed out, comparison values highlighted.

SLA Margin Utilization
0.91 0.72
Control Oscillation Freq.
0.34 0.08
Compensatory Overhead
0.28 0.09
Planning Confidence Index
0.38 0.81
Effective Capacity Ratio
0.61 0.84
Margin Erosion Rate
0.19 0.04

Decision Implication

Primary insight: If your system operates chronically near SLA boundaries despite constant control activity and capacity additions, you have a structural control oscillation problem.

Monitoring limitation: SLA metrics show rare breaches while the control oscillation that consumes stability margins remains invisible to standard observability.

Scaling consideration: Adding capacity may feed oscillation rather than creating genuine headroom, producing diminishing returns on infrastructure investment.

Evidence & Artefacts

Pre-computed analysis outputs for this scenario.

Such structural findings are typically contextualized through a scoped architecture risk assessment.