# Review an observability plan by asking what a responder can learn

Canonical: https://githtml.com/guides/review-observability-plan
Published: 2026-09-26
Publisher: WaveTech LLC / gitHtml

An observability review should ask which operational questions the proposed signals can answer. Connect each metric, log, or trace to a user outcome or diagnostic decision. Check missing context, sensitive data, and ownership, and distinguish instrumentation that exists in code from evidence that it works in the intended environment.

## Start with questions, not dashboards

An illustrative export service needs to distinguish requests that were rejected, jobs waiting to start, work that failed, and files successfully produced. A dashboard full of process metrics may not answer those questions. OpenTelemetry's observability primer explains the roles of different telemetry signals; choose signals according to the question rather than assuming more collection is automatically better. Record which population and time window a signal describes. A count of worker completions is not necessarily the same as a count of successful user requests.

## Trace a diagnostic journey

Imagine an authorized responder investigating an export that appears stuck. What identifier connects the request to the job and its outcome? Can the responder tell waiting from running, and can they find the relevant dependency failure without exposing the document's contents? OpenTelemetry's trace material provides context for following work across operations, but the project's actual propagation and sampling need verification. Include a fictional identifier in the review example and avoid real payloads. Ask what happens when a signal is missing or delayed rather than assuming every failure produces perfect telemetry.

1. Question: state the decision a responder must make.
2. Signal: identify the measurement, context, and collection limitations.
3. Ownership: name who maintains the signal and acts when it reveals a problem.

## Review blind spots and data exposure

Inspect whether logs or attributes can contain credentials, personal data, or excessively high-cardinality values. Follow the team's approved retention and access rules rather than inventing a universal policy. Check that alert conditions have an owner and a meaningful response, not merely a threshold. A mobile HTML review packet should summarize the diagnostic journey and known blind spots, with links to restricted details as appropriate. Keep collection status and last verification date visible. Reading the packet in gitHtml does not connect the reader to live telemetry or establish that instrumentation is functioning.

## Sources and further reading

- [OpenTelemetry: Observability primer](https://opentelemetry.io/docs/concepts/observability-primer/)
- [OpenTelemetry: Traces](https://opentelemetry.io/docs/concepts/signals/traces/)

## Related guides

- [Trace data flow through a technical review document](https://githtml.com/guides/trace-data-flow-in-technical-review)
- [Review a PostgreSQL query-plan report safely](https://githtml.com/guides/review-postgresql-query-plan-report)
- [Review performance claims without being fooled by one fast run](https://githtml.com/guides/review-performance-claims-with-distributions)
- [Review test coverage by reading assertions, not percentages](https://githtml.com/guides/review-test-coverage-by-assertions)

Editorial approach: https://githtml.com/guides/about