Fits: Fits source control, pull-request review, repository policy, automation, and release history when teams need a widely integrated reviewed-change record.
Limit: Repository and workflow history do not prove which artifact runs, whether production is healthy, or who accepted runtime risk; connect deployment and observability evidence.
Fits: Fits frontend preview and deployment workflows when each source change needs an inspectable candidate, release identity, production route, and rollback path.
Limit: A convenient deployment surface does not own the full source, container, multi-service platform, security-response, incident, or data migration contract.
Fits: Fits teams wanting source, protected review, CI/CD, security controls, packages, and delivery policy inside an integrated governed DevSecOps path.
Limit: Integrated breadth increases configuration and migration responsibility; runtime truth, external identity, edge controls, and human risk acceptance remain separate boundaries.
Fits: Fits reproducible container image and runtime contracts that connect developer environments, build inputs, image identity, registries, and controlled deployments.
Limit: A container image is not a production promotion, orchestrator, service health decision, security exception, or rollback policy; provenance and runtime mapping still need evidence.
Fits: Fits teams that need metrics, logs, traces, service maps, dashboards, monitors, and release correlation joined in one operational evidence surface.
Limit: More telemetry can raise ingestion cost and noise; dashboards do not set incident severity, accept security risk, authorize rollback, or prove complete customer impact.
Fits: Fits on-call routing, escalation, incident coordination, and response evidence when service ownership and time-critical human action need an explicit operating contract.
Limit: Response orchestration depends on trustworthy upstream signals and maintained ownership; it does not replace observability, deployment identity, remediation, or final risk acceptance.
Fits: Fits governed workforce identity, authentication, access policy, lifecycle, and access evidence when privileged production and security actions require centralized control.
Limit: Identity controls do not prove application authorization, code safety, runtime exposure, incident cause, or correct emergency access use; review privileges in each target system.
Fits: Fits source and dependency risk discovery integrated into engineering workflows when findings need priority, remediation ownership, exception evidence, and repeatable checks.
Limit: Scanner findings are not complete risk truth and cannot accept risk, authorize release, prove runtime exposure, or close an incident without engineering and security judgment.
Fits: Fits internet-edge delivery, traffic controls, performance, exposure evidence, and mitigation when reliability, security, and growth changes meet at the request path.
Limit: Edge visibility does not own application source, origin release identity, internal access, experiment meaning, complete observability, or incident root-cause evidence.
Fits: Fits product-event definitions, feature flags, experiments, cohorts, and behavioral evidence when a growth change needs explicit rollout and measurement boundaries.
Limit: Experiment results depend on event quality and guardrails; they do not authorize production promotion or justify conversion gains that degrade reliability, privacy, or security.
Fits: Fits application error, performance, trace, and release evidence when teams need to connect user-visible failures to code and deployment changes.
Limit: Error grouping and release correlation do not replace infrastructure telemetry, incident command, customer-impact judgment, security investigation, or rollback authority.
