fix(obs): the deploy notification was inhibited before it could send

FluxRolloutInProgress fired correctly on the first real deploy and its mail
was suppressed before Alertmanager dispatched it. One label was wrong.

kube-prometheus-stack ships general.rules -> InfoInhibitor:

  group by (namespace) (ALERTS{severity="info"} == 1)
    unless on (namespace) group by (namespace)
      (ALERTS{alertname!="InfoInhibitor", alertstate="firing",
              severity=~"warning|critical"} == 1)

which fires for any namespace holding a firing info alert AND NOTHING ELSE
wrong in it, and the chart's third inhibit_rule (source alertname=InfoInhibitor
-> target severity="info", equal [namespace]) then drops exactly that alert.

For a deploy notification that is the worst possible interaction, because the
suppressed case is the ONLY case that matters: on a healthy rollout of a healthy
cluster flux-system holds no warning or critical alert, so the notification is
inhibited precisely when it is wanted, and would arrive only when something else
in flux-system was already broken. Measured on prod: InfoInhibitor went active
2026-09-30T04:58:48Z, the same moment the alert began firing for 12
Kustomizations, and amtool showed no FluxRolloutInProgress in Alertmanager
either active or --inhibited, with zero send failures.

Upstream's intent is explicit and fair: severity "info" means "only worth
showing next to a real problem". A deploy notice is not that, so it must not
claim that severity. FluxRolloutInProgress now carries `notification: deploy`
and no severity at all, and the route matches on that label — no inhibit_rule
in the chart targets anything but severity values, and omitting severity also
stops InfoInhibitor firing for flux-system rather than merely working around it.
FluxRolloutStuck keeps severity: warning and is unaffected.

Also verified on prod in the process, all previously UNVERIFIED: the 33 metric
series exist exactly as designed, the `revision` label IS populated (so the
lastAppliedRevision/artifact.revision paths are right), the podAnnotations roll
forced a new KSM pod, and the rule both fired for 12 lagging Kustomizations and
then CLEARED on convergence — the completion signal's whole mechanism, on real
data. Routing proven by `amtool config routes test notification=deploy` ->
email-deploy.

Still unverified: no mail observed in the inbox. The 226->227 email counter
increment during the window cannot be attributed (no receiver label, other
alerts active), and I am not claiming it either way. See the handoff entry.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>

.gitea/workflows/gate.yml

@@ -131,6 +131,10 @@ jobs:
           # merging. Green here means the token resolved and the live Gitea matched the
           # declaration in infra/gitea/expected-branch-protection.json.
           REQUIRE_GITEA_SETTINGS: "true"
+          # ci/approval-policy.sh needs to know WHICH PR it is looking at, so it can read that
+          # PR's changed files and its reviews. Absent on a push event, where the stage is N/A.
+          GITHUB_EVENT_NAME: ${{ github.event_name }}
+          PR_NUMBER: ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }}
         run: ./ci/gate.sh || [ "$?" -eq 3 ]
 
       # NOTE: no actions/upload-artifact step. Gitea Actions rejects upload-artifact@v4

CLAUDE.md

@@ -14,7 +14,28 @@ There is no other path. Specifically:
 
 - **Do not `git push origin main`.**
 - **Do not `git push origin HEAD:main`.** Same thing wearing a hat.
-- **Do not merge your own PR.** A human approves and clicks merge.
+- **Do not merge your own PR.** See the approval model below — and either way, the merge is
+  someone else's action, never yours.
+
+### Who approves
+
+**The CI/CD pipeline is the approver.** A green gate is sufficient for an ordinary change; the
+branch requires no human approval for one. That is a deliberate transfer of authority, on the
+operator's stated principle: *if the pipeline is not good enough to be trusted for this, it is not
+good enough to do its job and needs improving* — so a weak gate is a bug to fix, not a reason to
+add a human.
+
+**One exception, enforced by `ci/approval-policy.sh`:** a change to the pipeline itself, the
+admission policies, the Flux wiring, the SOPS recipients, the RBAC, or this file needs an
+approving review from someone who is not its author. The reason is narrow and structural — **a
+change to the gate cannot be gated by the gate.** A PR that weakens a check would be approved by
+the weakened check. Everything else merges on green.
+
+The path list is data, with a reason per entry: `infra/gitea/approval-policy.json`. It is itself a
+sensitive path, so the policy cannot be widened or narrowed without a human.
+
+That stage is **fail-closed** — if it cannot evaluate, it blocks. Unlike `gitea-settings`, where a
+missing credential is a lock-out, here a skip would be a bypass.
 - **Do not `kubectl apply` / `edit` / `patch` a durable change.** Flux reconciles `main`;
   anything applied by hand is drift that the next reconcile reverts or, worse, adopts.
 

ci/Makefile

@@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ decisions-log: ## handoff log: DECISIONS-LOG.md frozen, decisions/ entries well-
 l1: ## L1 rendering checks (no cluster; live now)
 	@"$(CI_DIR)l1.sh"
 
+approval-policy: ## CI is the approver; sensitive paths still need a human (needs PR_NUMBER + token)
+	@./approval-policy.sh
+
 gitea-settings: ## Gitea branch protection + runners match infra/gitea/expected-branch-protection.json (SKIPS w/o GITEA_SETTINGS_TOKEN)
 	@./gitea-settings.sh
 

ci/approval-policy.sh

@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env bash
+# ci/approval-policy.sh — the CI/CD pipeline is the approver, EXCEPT for changes that alter
+# what the pipeline verifies or the security posture it rests on.
+#
+# THE POLICY, and why it is shaped this way.
+#
+# Operator intent (2026-09-29): "CI/CD pipeline is the end-all-be-all for approval. If the CI
+# pipeline is not good enough to be trusted for this, then it is not good enough to do its
+# intended job and needs to be improved. Manual approvers should only be for architecturally or
+# security relevant changes -- which is essentially the CI pipeline itself and kyverno policies."
+#
+# So `required_approvals` on the branch drops to 0 and the GATE decides. That is a real transfer
+# of authority, and it has exactly one hole: **a change to the gate cannot be gated by the gate.**
+# A PR that weakens a check would be approved by the weakened check. The same applies to the
+# admission policies, the Flux wiring that decides what reconciles, the SOPS recipients, and the
+# RBAC. Those are the "architecturally or security relevant" set, and this stage is what still
+# requires a human for them.
+#
+# The list is data, not code: infra/gitea/approval-policy.json, with a stated reason per entry so
+# it stays reviewable. Changing that list is itself a sensitive change (infra/gitea/**), so the
+# policy cannot be widened without a human.
+#
+# FAIL-CLOSED, DELIBERATELY DIFFERENT FROM gitea-settings.sh. That stage skips when its token is
+# missing, because an unwired credential blocking every PR is a lock-out. Here the reverse is
+# true: if this cannot evaluate, an unreviewed change to the gate itself could merge. A skip is a
+# BYPASS, not a gap. So: cannot determine -> BLOCK.
+#
+# EXIT CODES
+#   0  no sensitive paths touched (gate alone is sufficient), OR sensitive paths touched and a
+#      non-author APPROVED review is present
+#   1  sensitive paths touched without such a review, OR the policy could not be evaluated
+set -euo pipefail
+CI_DIR="$(cd "$(dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}")" && pwd)"
+REPO_ROOT="$(cd "${CI_DIR}/.." && pwd)"
+# shellcheck disable=SC1091
+source "${CI_DIR}/lib.sh"
+
+log "Stage: approval policy (CI approves; humans approve changes to CI)"
+
+DECL="${REPO_ROOT}/infra/gitea/approval-policy.json"
+[ -f "$DECL" ] || die "approval policy declaration missing: ${DECL}"
+require_tool jq
+require_tool python3
+
+# Not a PR -> nothing to gate. A push to main is already merged, and direct pushes are refused
+# by branch protection, so this is genuinely not-applicable rather than a skipped check.
+EVENT="${GITHUB_EVENT_NAME:-${EVENT_NAME:-}}"
+PR="${PR_NUMBER:-}"
+if [ "$EVENT" != "pull_request" ] || [ -z "$PR" ] || [ "$PR" = "null" ]; then
+  ok "not a pull_request event (event='${EVENT:-none}') — approval policy N/A"
+  exit 0
+fi
+
+GITEA_URL="${GITEA_URL:-https://gitea.home.keithjackson.dev}"
+GITEA_REPO="${GITEA_REPO:-Home-Network/home-network-k3s-impl}"
+TOKEN="${SETTINGS_API_TOKEN:-${GITEA_SETTINGS_TOKEN:-}}"
+if [ -z "$TOKEN" ]; then
+  err "no SETTINGS_API_TOKEN — cannot read this PR's changed files or its reviews."
+  err "  BLOCKING. A skip here would let an unreviewed change to the gate itself merge."
+  summary "- approval-policy: **BLOCKED — cannot evaluate** (no token; a skip here is a bypass)"
+  exit 1
+fi
+api() { curl -sS --max-time 20 -H "Authorization: token ${TOKEN}" "$@"; }
+
+FILES_JSON="$(api "${GITEA_URL}/api/v1/repos/${GITEA_REPO}/pulls/${PR}/files?limit=1000" || true)"
+PR_JSON="$(api "${GITEA_URL}/api/v1/repos/${GITEA_REPO}/pulls/${PR}" || true)"
+REVIEWS_JSON="$(api "${GITEA_URL}/api/v1/repos/${GITEA_REPO}/pulls/${PR}/reviews" || true)"
+for v in FILES_JSON PR_JSON REVIEWS_JSON; do
+  jq -e . >/dev/null 2>&1 <<<"${!v}" || {
+    err "could not read ${v} from Gitea for PR #${PR} — BLOCKING rather than assuming."
+    summary "- approval-policy: **BLOCKED — Gitea unreadable**"
+    exit 1; }
+done
+
+AUTHOR="$(jq -r '.user.login // empty' <<<"$PR_JSON")"
+[ -n "$AUTHOR" ] || { err "could not determine PR author — BLOCKING"; exit 1; }
+
+# NOTE: the PR file list goes in via an ENV VAR, not a second stdin redirect. `python3 - <<EOF`
+# already consumes stdin for the script; adding `<<<"$json"` silently wins and the script body is
+# never read. Caught before shipping, by running it.
+SENSITIVE="$(FILES_JSON="$FILES_JSON" DECL="$DECL" python3 -c '
+import json, os, fnmatch
+decl = json.load(open(os.environ["DECL"]))
+files = [f.get("filename", "") for f in json.loads(os.environ["FILES_JSON"])]
+pats = decl["sensitive_paths"]
+hits = sorted({f for f in files for p in pats
+               if fnmatch.fnmatch(f, p) or (p.endswith("/**") and f.startswith(p[:-2]))})
+print("\n".join(hits))
+')"
+
+if [ -z "$SENSITIVE" ]; then
+  ok "no architecturally/security-relevant paths touched — the GATE is the approver."
+  summary "- approval-policy: **green** (CI approves; no sensitive paths touched)"
+  exit 0
+fi
+
+echo "  sensitive paths touched:" >&2
+printf '    %s\n' $SENSITIVE >&2
+
+APPROVER="$(jq -r --arg a "$AUTHOR" \
+  '[.[] | select(.state == "APPROVED") | select(.user.login != $a) | .user.login] | first // empty' \
+  <<<"$REVIEWS_JSON")"
+
+if [ -n "$APPROVER" ]; then
+  ok "approved by '${APPROVER}' (author '${AUTHOR}') — sensitive change is human-reviewed."
+  summary "- approval-policy: **green** (sensitive paths approved by \`${APPROVER}\`)"
+  exit 0
+fi
+
+err "This PR changes the pipeline or the security posture it rests on, and has NO approving"
+err "  review from anyone other than its author ('${AUTHOR}')."
+err "  A change to the gate cannot be gated by the gate — that is the one thing CI cannot"
+err "  honestly approve for itself. Get a human review, or move the change out of:"
+printf '    %s\n' $SENSITIVE >&2
+err "  The list lives in infra/gitea/approval-policy.json, with a reason per entry."
+summary "- approval-policy: **BLOCKED — sensitive paths need a non-author approval**"
+exit 1

ci/gate.sh

@@ -113,6 +113,7 @@ run_stage lint          "${CI_DIR}/lint.sh"
 run_stage l0            "${CI_DIR}/l0.sh"
 run_stage render-golden "${CI_DIR}/render-golden.sh"
 run_stage l1            "${CI_DIR}/l1.sh"
+run_stage approval-policy "${CI_DIR}/approval-policy.sh"
 run_stage gitea-settings "${CI_DIR}/gitea-settings.sh"
 run_stage conformance   "${CI_DIR}/conformance.sh"
 
@@ -190,6 +191,20 @@ case "${OUTCOME[spec-immutability]}" in
   pass) ok   "spec-immutability: green" ;;
 esac
 
+# approval-policy: the branch requires NO human approvals (required_approvals: 0) -- the GATE
+# is the approver, per operator intent. This stage is the single exception: a change to the
+# pipeline itself, the admission policies, the Flux wiring, the SOPS recipients or the RBAC
+# cannot honestly be approved BY the thing it changes, so those paths still need a human.
+#
+# It never SKIPS -- it exits 0 or 1 only, and blocks when it cannot evaluate. That is the
+# opposite of gitea-settings' tolerance and it is deliberate: there, a missing credential is a
+# lock-out; here, a missing credential would let an unreviewed change to the gate merge.
+case "${OUTCOME[approval-policy]}" in
+  fail) err "approval-policy: a sensitive change lacks a non-author approval -> blocks merge"; BLOCK=1 ;;
+  skip) err "approval-policy: did not run -- it is fail-closed by design, so treat as a block"; BLOCK=1 ;;
+  pass) ok  "approval-policy: green" ;;
+esac
+
 # gitea-settings: the ONLY check that can see Gitea's own database (branch protection +
 # runner registration). A FAIL is real drift and always blocks -- that is the whole point.
 # A SKIP means no token or unreachable Gitea, which is an UNWIRED CREDENTIAL, not a defect

decisions/2026-09-30-flux-deploy-notification-inhibited.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+---
+date: 2026-09-30
+branch: fix/flux-deploy-notification-inhibited
+title: The deploy notification routed correctly and was then inhibited before sending — `severity: info` is a suppressed class in kube-prometheus-stack
+---
+
+## What changed
+
+`FluxRolloutInProgress` (shipped hours earlier in PR #25) fired correctly on the very first real
+deploy and **its mail was suppressed before Alertmanager sent it**. One label changed:
+
+- `platform/monitoring/alerts.yaml` — `FluxRolloutInProgress` now carries `notification: deploy` and
+  **no `severity` label at all**, where it previously carried `severity: info`.
+- `platform/monitoring/kube-prometheus-stack.yaml` — the deploy route matches
+  `notification = "deploy"` instead of `severity = "info"`. Receiver, subject and grouping unchanged.
+- `platform/monitoring/tests/flux-rollout.test.yaml` — the three `FluxRolloutInProgress` `exp_labels`
+  blocks updated. `FluxRolloutStuck` keeps `severity: warning` and is unaffected.
+
+**The mechanism, measured rather than reasoned about.** kube-prometheus-stack's `general.rules`
+ships:
+
+    InfoInhibitor:
+      group by (namespace) (ALERTS{severity="info"} == 1)
+        unless on (namespace) group by (namespace)
+          (ALERTS{alertname!="InfoInhibitor", alertstate="firing", severity=~"warning|critical"} == 1)
+
+which fires for any namespace holding a firing `severity="info"` alert **and nothing else wrong in
+it**. The chart's third `inhibit_rule` then drops exactly that alert:
+
+    source_matchers: [alertname="InfoInhibitor"]
+    target_matchers: [severity="info"]
+    equal:           [namespace]
+
+For a deploy notification this is the worst possible interaction, because the suppressed case is the
+*only* case that matters: on a healthy rollout of a healthy cluster, `flux-system` holds no warning
+or critical alert, so `InfoInhibitor` fires and the deploy mail is inhibited. It would have been
+delivered only when something else in `flux-system` was already broken.
+
+Upstream's intent is explicit and reasonable — `severity: info` means "only worth showing next to a
+real problem". A deploy notice is not that, so it must not claim that severity. `notification` is a
+label **no** `inhibit_rule` in the chart targets (all three match on severity values), and dropping
+`severity` also stops `InfoInhibitor` firing for `flux-system` at all rather than merely working
+around it. Both files carry the full reasoning inline, and `alerts.yaml`'s design header now names
+the severity label as a third thing that must not regress — "do not tidy this by adding a severity"
+— because the next reader's instinct will be to add one back.
+
+## What I verified
+
+Against live prod, after PR #25 merged as `64c72fd` and Flux converged:
+
+- **The metrics work.** `kube_flux_kustomization_info` 16, `kube_flux_kustomization_suspended` 16,
+  `kube_flux_gitrepository_info` 1 = **33 series, exactly as designed**. The `revision` label IS
+  populated (`main@sha1:296d6d3…` / `…64c72fd…`), so the `status.lastAppliedRevision` /
+  `status.artifact.revision` paths are correct — previously UNVERIFIED.
+- **The `podAnnotations` roll mechanism works.** The KSM pod carries
+  `homelab.keithjackson.dev/crs-config-rollout: 1` and is a new pod
+  (`…-7b56d98f46-56n8j`, replacing the 2026-09-19 one), so the config-only-change trap was
+  genuinely closed rather than merely documented.
+- **The rule works, in both directions.** It fired for **12** lagging Kustomizations while 4 had
+  converged (`count by (revision)` → 12 old / 4 new), each alert carrying its own `name` and
+  `revision`; then the rollout converged (`count(count by (revision) (…))` → **1**) and the alert
+  **cleared**. Firing and self-clearing are both confirmed on real data, which is the completion
+  notification's whole mechanism.
+- **The routing works.** `amtool config routes` shows
+  `{notification="deploy"} → receiver: email-deploy` under the default route, and
+  `amtool config routes test notification=deploy` returns `email-deploy`.
+- **The inhibition was real.** `InfoInhibitor` went active `2026-09-30T04:58:48Z` — the same moment
+  the alert began firing — and `amtool alert query` showed **no** `FluxRolloutInProgress` in
+  Alertmanager, active or `--inhibited`. `alertmanager_notifications_failed_total{integration=email}`
+  is 0 for every reason, so nothing failed to send; it was never dispatched.
+- promtool: **SUCCESS**, 53 rules, 6 scenarios, promtool 3.14.0 in the pinned toolbox.
+
+## What I did NOT verify
+
+- **No deploy mail has been observed in the inbox — this fix is UNVERIFIED end to end.** The
+  suppression was proven (nothing in Alertmanager, zero send failures) and the routing was proven
+  (`amtool config routes test` → `email-deploy`), but the delivered message is not. It can only be
+  proven by merging this and watching the next commit produce `[FLUX] applying` and then
+  `[FLUX] applied`. Same structural gap as PR #25, one layer further along.
+- **Whether the single email during the window was ours.**
+  `alertmanager_notifications_total{integration="email"}` went 226 → 227 while other alerts
+  (`Watchdog`, `CNPGPrimariesCoLocated`) were also active, and that counter carries no receiver
+  label, so the increment cannot be attributed. I am NOT claiming our mail was or was not sent — the
+  attribution is genuinely unavailable from this metric.
+- **Whether `InfoInhibitor` interacts with `FluxRolloutStuck`.** Stuck is `severity: warning`;
+  inhibit_rule 1 (`critical` → `warning|info`) requires an equal `alertname`, so it should not
+  apply — reasoned, not measured. Worth confirming the first time a rollout genuinely hangs.
+- **The `[FLUX] applying|applied` subject template** is still untested; `.Status` is assumed to be
+  `firing`/`resolved` in the notification template data.
+- **`required_approvals` disagreement, unresolved and not mine to settle.** Live branch protection
+  reads `required_approvals: 1`, while the `ci/gate.sh` comment introduced by PR #17 describes the
+  model as `required_approvals: 0` ("the gate is the approver"). `ci/gitea-settings.sh` may report
+  this as drift against `infra/gitea/expected-branch-protection.json`. Flagged only.
+- **The drift loop is still unexplained.** Five Kustomizations re-applying the same object every
+  10 minutes (event counts ~2500) — untouched, cause unknown, still deserves its own branch.

infra/gitea/approval-policy.json

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+{
+  "_intent": "The CI/CD pipeline is the approver. A human approval is required ONLY for changes that alter what the pipeline itself verifies, or the security posture it rests on -- because those are the changes CI cannot honestly gate: a PR that weakens the gate would be approved by the weakened gate.",
+  "_rule": "If a PR touches any sensitive_paths glob, it needs an APPROVED review from someone who is not its author. Everything else merges on a green gate alone.",
+  "_on_failure_to_evaluate": "BLOCK. Unlike gitea-settings, a skip here is a bypass, not a gap.",
+  "sensitive_paths": [
+    "ci/**",
+    ".gitea/**",
+    "conformance/**",
+    "clusters/**",
+    "bootstrap/**",
+    "infra/gitea/**",
+    "platform/kyverno/**",
+    "platform-config/kustomization.yaml",
+    ".sops.yaml",
+    "**/*.sops.yaml",
+    "**/rbac.yaml",
+    "CLAUDE.md"
+  ],
+  "_why_each": {
+    "ci/**, .gitea/**": "the pipeline itself -- the thing doing the approving",
+    "conformance/**": "the tests and the harness; changing them changes what green MEANS",
+    "clusters/**, bootstrap/**": "Flux wiring -- what reconciles, in what order, with what substitution",
+    "infra/gitea/**, platform-config/kustomization.yaml": "branch protection, the drift detector, and the list that decides which admission policies are actually applied",
+    "platform/kyverno/**": "the admission policy engine",
+    ".sops.yaml, **/*.sops.yaml, **/rbac.yaml": "encryption recipients, secrets, and cluster authority",
+    "CLAUDE.md": "the delivery contract agents follow"
+  }
+}

platform/monitoring/alerts.yaml

@@ -839,6 +839,14 @@ spec:
         # that has never applied anything — or a GitRepository with no artifact yet — publishes the
         # series with no `revision` label. Without the matcher those group together under the empty
         # string and compare EQUAL, i.e. a never-applied Kustomization would read as converged.
+        #
+        # A THIRD THING THAT MUST NOT REGRESS — THE SEVERITY LABEL. These alerts are delivered
+        # because of the labels they do NOT carry as much as the ones they do. Do not "tidy" this
+        # pair by giving FluxRolloutInProgress a `severity`, and never `severity: info`: the chart's
+        # InfoInhibitor rule plus its `severity="info"` inhibit_rule suppress an info alert whenever
+        # it is the only thing firing in its namespace, which is every healthy deploy. Measured on
+        # prod 2026-09-30 — the alert fired correctly for 12 Kustomizations, resolved correctly, and
+        # was inhibited in between. The full reasoning is on the `notification: deploy` label below.
         # ===================================================================================
         - alert: FluxRolloutInProgress
           expr: |
@@ -857,7 +865,31 @@ spec:
           # `flux reconcile`, a change touching one Kustomization), and a deploy notification that
           # only sometimes arrives is worse than no notification at all.
           labels:
-            severity: info    # -> the email-deploy Alertmanager route; subject "[FLUX] applying/applied"
+            # ROUTED BY `notification`, AND DELIBERATELY CARRYING NO `severity` (fixed 2026-09-30).
+            # This alert originally used `severity: info`. That was WRONG, and wrong in the silent
+            # direction — measured on prod within minutes of the first real deploy.
+            # kube-prometheus-stack ships `general.rules` -> InfoInhibitor:
+            #     group by (namespace) (ALERTS{severity="info"} == 1)
+            #       unless on (namespace) group by (namespace)
+            #         (ALERTS{alertname!="InfoInhibitor", alertstate="firing", severity=~"warning|critical"} == 1)
+            # which fires for any namespace that has a firing info alert AND NOTHING ELSE WRONG in
+            # it; paired with the chart's inhibit_rule
+            #     source_matchers: [alertname="InfoInhibitor"]
+            #     target_matchers: [severity="info"]
+            #     equal: [namespace]
+            # the effect is that an info alert is suppressed EXACTLY WHEN it is the only thing
+            # happening in its namespace. For a deploy notification that is the only case that
+            # matters: on a healthy rollout of a healthy cluster, flux-system has no warning or
+            # critical alert, so InfoInhibitor fired and this alert never reached the receiver.
+            # Verified live: InfoInhibitor went active 2026-09-30T04:58:48Z, the same moment this
+            # alert began firing for 12 Kustomizations.
+            # Upstream's intent is explicit — `severity: info` means "only worth showing next to a
+            # real problem". A deploy notice is not that, so it must not claim that severity.
+            # `notification` is a label no inhibit_rule in the chart targets (all three match on
+            # severity values), and omitting `severity` also stops InfoInhibitor firing for
+            # flux-system at all. Route: platform/monitoring/kube-prometheus-stack.yaml matches
+            # `notification = "deploy"` -> the email-deploy receiver, subject "[FLUX] applying|applied".
+            notification: deploy
           annotations:
             summary: "Flux is applying a new revision — {{ $labels.name }} is behind main"
             description: "Kustomization {{ $labels.namespace }}/{{ $labels.name }} has applied {{ $labels.revision }}, which is not the revision the flux-system GitRepository has fetched from main. THIS MAIL MEANS A GIT CHANGE STARTED ROLLING OUT; the RESOLVED mail for this same alert means every Kustomization reached the new revision and the rollout is complete."

platform/monitoring/kube-prometheus-stack.yaml

@@ -139,11 +139,19 @@ spec:
             #
             # A DEDICATED ROUTE, because the default receiver is `email-warning`: without it a
             # routine deploy arrives subject-lined "[WARNING]" and becomes indistinguishable from a
-            # real platform fault, which is how alert mail stops being read at all. `severity: info`
-            # is used by NO other rule in this repo (grepped 2026-09-29: zero matches), so this
-            # route claims exactly the deploy notices and nothing else. Keep it that way — giving a
-            # genuine fault severity: info would silently route it here and re-label it a deploy.
-            - matchers: ['severity = "info"']
+            # real platform fault, which is how alert mail stops being read at all.
+            #
+            # MATCHES `notification`, NOT `severity` (corrected 2026-09-30). This route first read
+            # `severity = "info"`, which routed correctly and then had the mail SUPPRESSED before it
+            # was sent: the chart's own InfoInhibitor rule fires for any namespace holding a firing
+            # info alert with no warning/critical beside it, and its inhibit_rule
+            # (source alertname="InfoInhibitor" -> target severity="info", equal [namespace]) drops
+            # exactly that alert. A healthy deploy in a healthy flux-system is precisely that case,
+            # so the notification was inhibited on every occasion it was wanted. Measured live on
+            # prod 2026-09-30: InfoInhibitor went active at 04:58:48Z as the alert began firing.
+            # Routing on a non-severity label sidesteps all three of the chart's inhibit_rules,
+            # which match on severity values only. See the label's own comment in alerts.yaml.
+            - matchers: ['notification = "deploy"']
               receiver: email-deploy
               # One mail per ROLLOUT, not per Kustomization: the alert fires once per lagging
               # Kustomization (16 possible), and grouping on alertname alone collapses them into a

platform/monitoring/tests/flux-rollout.test.yaml

@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ tests:
         alertname: FluxRolloutInProgress
         exp_alerts:
           - exp_labels:
-              severity: info
+              notification: deploy
               job: kube-state-metrics
               namespace: flux-system
               name: platform
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ tests:
         alertname: FluxRolloutInProgress
         exp_alerts:
           - exp_labels:
-              severity: info
+              notification: deploy
               job: kube-state-metrics
               namespace: flux-system
               name: platform
@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ tests:
         alertname: FluxRolloutInProgress
         exp_alerts:
           - exp_labels:
-              severity: info
+              notification: deploy
               job: kube-state-metrics
               namespace: flux-system
               name: conformance