[Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only #192

Open
Feature
Open
[Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only#192
Feature
Labels
enhancementNew feature or request

Description

@JohnHales
JohnHales
opened on Aug 17, 2026

Feature Description

blueprints/ contains four families — fedramp-high, il5, stand-alone and third-party-solutions. There is no fedramp-moderate family, and the tree is identical at v2.13.0 and v3.0.0. Meanwhile the platform itself gained FedRAMP Moderate support in v3.0.0: kms_protection_level is now a variable across 0-bootstrap, 1-resman, 2-networking and 3-security, and the networking stage README is now "FedRAMP High / Moderate Network".

So an operator can now stand up a FedRAMP Moderate landing zone and then has no blueprint written for that regime to deploy a workload into it.

Use Case

FedRAMP Moderate is the larger share of federal and state workloads, and the reason to choose it over High is usually cost and operational burden — Moderate permits SOFTWARE protection level where High typically requires HSM, for example. Today that saving stops at the landing-zone boundary: the moment a team deploys Cloud SQL, App Engine, Cloud Run or Gemini Enterprise, the only blueprints available are the FedRAMP High ones, which carry High's controls and costs.

The practical outcomes are all bad: deploy the High blueprint into a Moderate environment and inherit controls (and spend) the regime does not require; hand-roll a Moderate variant and lose the reusability the repository exists to provide; or fall back to High for the whole deployment and lose the reason for choosing Moderate.

Proposed Solution

Either a blueprints/fedramp-moderate/ family, or — probably better given the overlap — a regime input on the existing blueprints so one blueprint can emit the correct posture per regime, in the same spirit as kms_protection_level in the FAST stages. A statement of intent would help on its own: even a README note saying which blueprints are safe to use unmodified under Moderate, and which are not, would unblock planning.

Compliance & Deployment Context

  • Target Deployment Type(s):
    • US Region Restricted (e.g., Access Policy constraint)
    • FedRAMP Medium
    • FedRAMP High
    • FedRAMP Moderate
    • DoD IL4
    • DoD IL5
    • All / General
  • Relevant NIST 800-53r5 Controls: SC-12 / SC-13 (key management and protection level are where High and Moderate visibly diverge today); CM-6 for the baseline the blueprints encode.

Reusability Check

  • I have checked if this functionality can be achieved by extending an existing module or blueprint.
  • I have verified that this does not duplicate existing functionality.

Extending the existing blueprints is exactly what is proposed above — a new parallel tree is the alternative, not the preference. On duplication: #102 is open and covers only the gemini-enterprise blueprint; #101, the platform-level request, is closed as completed. Nothing covers the rest of the blueprint library.

Alternatives Considered

Deploying the FedRAMP High blueprints into a Moderate environment — works, but over-controls and over-spends, and misrepresents the deployed posture in an SSP. Forking a blueprint per customer — loses reusability and drifts from upstream fixes. Widening #102 to cover all blueprints — possible, but its title and body are scoped to Gemini Enterprise, so a separate request tracks better.

Additional Context

Verified against the repository tree at v2.13.0 (8f5b67a6) and v3.0.0 (f64ce6cd): the four blueprint families are unchanged between the two tags.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    enhancementNew feature or request

    Type

    Feature

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
       blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

      Skip to content
      [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only #192
      Open
      Feature
      Open
      [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only#192
      Feature
      Labels
      enhancementNew feature or request
      Description
      @JohnHales
      JohnHales
      opened on Aug 17, 2026
      Feature Description
      blueprints/ contains four families — fedramp-high, il5, stand-alone and third-party-solutions. There is no fedramp-moderate family, and the tree is identical at v2.13.0 and v3.0.0. Meanwhile the platform itself gained FedRAMP Moderate support in v3.0.0: kms_protection_level is now a variable across 0-bootstrap, 1-resman, 2-networking and 3-security, and the networking stage README is now "FedRAMP High / Moderate Network".
      So an operator can now stand up a FedRAMP Moderate landing zone and then has no blueprint written for that regime to deploy a workload into it.
      Use Case
      FedRAMP Moderate is the larger share of federal and state workloads, and the reason to choose it over High is usually cost and operational burden — Moderate permits SOFTWARE protection level where High typically requires HSM, for example. Today that saving stops at the landing-zone boundary: the moment a team deploys Cloud SQL, App Engine, Cloud Run or Gemini Enterprise, the only blueprints available are the FedRAMP High ones, which carry High's controls and costs.
      The practical outcomes are all bad: deploy the High blueprint into a Moderate environment and inherit controls (and spend) the regime does not require; hand-roll a Moderate variant and lose the reusability the repository exists to provide; or fall back to High for the whole deployment and lose the reason for choosing Moderate.
      Proposed Solution
      Either a blueprints/fedramp-moderate/ family, or — probably better given the overlap — a regime input on the existing blueprints so one blueprint can emit the correct posture per regime, in the same spirit as kms_protection_level in the FAST stages. A statement of intent would help on its own: even a README note saying which blueprints are safe to use unmodified under Moderate, and which are not, would unblock planning.
      Compliance & Deployment Context
      • Target Deployment Type(s):
        •  US Region Restricted (e.g., Access Policy constraint)
        •  FedRAMP Medium
        •  FedRAMP High
        •  FedRAMP Moderate
        •  DoD IL4
        •  DoD IL5
        •  All / General
      • Relevant NIST 800-53r5 Controls: SC-12 / SC-13 (key management and protection level are where High and Moderate visibly diverge today); CM-6 for the baseline the blueprints encode.
      Reusability Check
      •  I have checked if this functionality can be achieved by extending an existing module or blueprint.
      •  I have verified that this does not duplicate existing functionality.
      Extending the existing blueprints is exactly what is proposed above — a new parallel tree is the alternative, not the preference. On duplication: #102 is open and covers only the gemini-enterprise blueprint; #101, the platform-level request, is closed as completed. Nothing covers the rest of the blueprint library.
      Alternatives Considered
      Deploying the FedRAMP High blueprints into a Moderate environment — works, but over-controls and over-spends, and misrepresents the deployed posture in an SSP. Forking a blueprint per customer — loses reusability and drifts from upstream fixes. Widening #102 to cover all blueprints — possible, but its title and body are scoped to Gemini Enterprise, so a separate request tracks better.
      Additional Context
      Verified against the repository tree at v2.13.0 (8f5b67a6) and v3.0.0 (f64ce6cd): the four blueprint families are unchanged between the two tags.
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        enhancementNew feature or request
        Type
        Feature
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

          Skip to content
          [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only #192
          Open
          Feature
          Open
          [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only#192
          Feature
          Labels
          enhancementNew feature or request
          Description
          @JohnHales
          JohnHales
          opened on Aug 17, 2026
          Feature Description
          blueprints/ contains four families — fedramp-high, il5, stand-alone and third-party-solutions. There is no fedramp-moderate family, and the tree is identical at v2.13.0 and v3.0.0. Meanwhile the platform itself gained FedRAMP Moderate support in v3.0.0: kms_protection_level is now a variable across 0-bootstrap, 1-resman, 2-networking and 3-security, and the networking stage README is now "FedRAMP High / Moderate Network".
          So an operator can now stand up a FedRAMP Moderate landing zone and then has no blueprint written for that regime to deploy a workload into it.
          Use Case
          FedRAMP Moderate is the larger share of federal and state workloads, and the reason to choose it over High is usually cost and operational burden — Moderate permits SOFTWARE protection level where High typically requires HSM, for example. Today that saving stops at the landing-zone boundary: the moment a team deploys Cloud SQL, App Engine, Cloud Run or Gemini Enterprise, the only blueprints available are the FedRAMP High ones, which carry High's controls and costs.
          The practical outcomes are all bad: deploy the High blueprint into a Moderate environment and inherit controls (and spend) the regime does not require; hand-roll a Moderate variant and lose the reusability the repository exists to provide; or fall back to High for the whole deployment and lose the reason for choosing Moderate.
          Proposed Solution
          Either a blueprints/fedramp-moderate/ family, or — probably better given the overlap — a regime input on the existing blueprints so one blueprint can emit the correct posture per regime, in the same spirit as kms_protection_level in the FAST stages. A statement of intent would help on its own: even a README note saying which blueprints are safe to use unmodified under Moderate, and which are not, would unblock planning.
          Compliance & Deployment Context
          • Target Deployment Type(s):
            •  US Region Restricted (e.g., Access Policy constraint)
            •  FedRAMP Medium
            •  FedRAMP High
            •  FedRAMP Moderate
            •  DoD IL4
            •  DoD IL5
            •  All / General
          • Relevant NIST 800-53r5 Controls: SC-12 / SC-13 (key management and protection level are where High and Moderate visibly diverge today); CM-6 for the baseline the blueprints encode.
          Reusability Check
          •  I have checked if this functionality can be achieved by extending an existing module or blueprint.
          •  I have verified that this does not duplicate existing functionality.
          Extending the existing blueprints is exactly what is proposed above — a new parallel tree is the alternative, not the preference. On duplication: #102 is open and covers only the gemini-enterprise blueprint; #101, the platform-level request, is closed as completed. Nothing covers the rest of the blueprint library.
          Alternatives Considered
          Deploying the FedRAMP High blueprints into a Moderate environment — works, but over-controls and over-spends, and misrepresents the deployed posture in an SSP. Forking a blueprint per customer — loses reusability and drifts from upstream fixes. Widening #102 to cover all blueprints — possible, but its title and body are scoped to Gemini Enterprise, so a separate request tracks better.
          Additional Context
          Verified against the repository tree at v2.13.0 (8f5b67a6) and v3.0.0 (f64ce6cd): the four blueprint families are unchanged between the two tags.
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            enhancementNew feature or request
            Type
            Feature
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

              Skip to content
              [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only #192
              Open
              Feature
              Open
              [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only#192
              Feature
              Labels
              enhancementNew feature or request
              Description
              @JohnHales
              JohnHales
              opened on Aug 17, 2026
              Feature Description
              blueprints/ contains four families — fedramp-high, il5, stand-alone and third-party-solutions. There is no fedramp-moderate family, and the tree is identical at v2.13.0 and v3.0.0. Meanwhile the platform itself gained FedRAMP Moderate support in v3.0.0: kms_protection_level is now a variable across 0-bootstrap, 1-resman, 2-networking and 3-security, and the networking stage README is now "FedRAMP High / Moderate Network".
              So an operator can now stand up a FedRAMP Moderate landing zone and then has no blueprint written for that regime to deploy a workload into it.
              Use Case
              FedRAMP Moderate is the larger share of federal and state workloads, and the reason to choose it over High is usually cost and operational burden — Moderate permits SOFTWARE protection level where High typically requires HSM, for example. Today that saving stops at the landing-zone boundary: the moment a team deploys Cloud SQL, App Engine, Cloud Run or Gemini Enterprise, the only blueprints available are the FedRAMP High ones, which carry High's controls and costs.
              The practical outcomes are all bad: deploy the High blueprint into a Moderate environment and inherit controls (and spend) the regime does not require; hand-roll a Moderate variant and lose the reusability the repository exists to provide; or fall back to High for the whole deployment and lose the reason for choosing Moderate.
              Proposed Solution
              Either a blueprints/fedramp-moderate/ family, or — probably better given the overlap — a regime input on the existing blueprints so one blueprint can emit the correct posture per regime, in the same spirit as kms_protection_level in the FAST stages. A statement of intent would help on its own: even a README note saying which blueprints are safe to use unmodified under Moderate, and which are not, would unblock planning.
              Compliance & Deployment Context
              • Target Deployment Type(s):
                •  US Region Restricted (e.g., Access Policy constraint)
                •  FedRAMP Medium
                •  FedRAMP High
                •  FedRAMP Moderate
                •  DoD IL4
                •  DoD IL5
                •  All / General
              • Relevant NIST 800-53r5 Controls: SC-12 / SC-13 (key management and protection level are where High and Moderate visibly diverge today); CM-6 for the baseline the blueprints encode.
              Reusability Check
              •  I have checked if this functionality can be achieved by extending an existing module or blueprint.
              •  I have verified that this does not duplicate existing functionality.
              Extending the existing blueprints is exactly what is proposed above — a new parallel tree is the alternative, not the preference. On duplication: #102 is open and covers only the gemini-enterprise blueprint; #101, the platform-level request, is closed as completed. Nothing covers the rest of the blueprint library.
              Alternatives Considered
              Deploying the FedRAMP High blueprints into a Moderate environment — works, but over-controls and over-spends, and misrepresents the deployed posture in an SSP. Forking a blueprint per customer — loses reusability and drifts from upstream fixes. Widening #102 to cover all blueprints — possible, but its title and body are scoped to Gemini Enterprise, so a separate request tracks better.
              Additional Context
              Verified against the repository tree at v2.13.0 (8f5b67a6) and v3.0.0 (f64ce6cd): the four blueprint families are unchanged between the two tags.
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                enhancementNew feature or request
                Type
                Feature
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions
                  
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

                  Skip to content
                  [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only #192
                  Open
                  Feature
                  Open
                  [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only#192
                  Feature
                  Labels
                  enhancementNew feature or request
                  Description
                  @JohnHales
                  JohnHales
                  opened on Aug 17, 2026
                  Feature Description
                  blueprints/ contains four families — fedramp-high, il5, stand-alone and third-party-solutions. There is no fedramp-moderate family, and the tree is identical at v2.13.0 and v3.0.0. Meanwhile the platform itself gained FedRAMP Moderate support in v3.0.0: kms_protection_level is now a variable across 0-bootstrap, 1-resman, 2-networking and 3-security, and the networking stage README is now "FedRAMP High / Moderate Network".
                  So an operator can now stand up a FedRAMP Moderate landing zone and then has no blueprint written for that regime to deploy a workload into it.
                  Use Case
                  FedRAMP Moderate is the larger share of federal and state workloads, and the reason to choose it over High is usually cost and operational burden — Moderate permits SOFTWARE protection level where High typically requires HSM, for example. Today that saving stops at the landing-zone boundary: the moment a team deploys Cloud SQL, App Engine, Cloud Run or Gemini Enterprise, the only blueprints available are the FedRAMP High ones, which carry High's controls and costs.
                  The practical outcomes are all bad: deploy the High blueprint into a Moderate environment and inherit controls (and spend) the regime does not require; hand-roll a Moderate variant and lose the reusability the repository exists to provide; or fall back to High for the whole deployment and lose the reason for choosing Moderate.
                  Proposed Solution
                  Either a blueprints/fedramp-moderate/ family, or — probably better given the overlap — a regime input on the existing blueprints so one blueprint can emit the correct posture per regime, in the same spirit as kms_protection_level in the FAST stages. A statement of intent would help on its own: even a README note saying which blueprints are safe to use unmodified under Moderate, and which are not, would unblock planning.
                  Compliance & Deployment Context
                  • Target Deployment Type(s):
                    •  US Region Restricted (e.g., Access Policy constraint)
                    •  FedRAMP Medium
                    •  FedRAMP High
                    •  FedRAMP Moderate
                    •  DoD IL4
                    •  DoD IL5
                    •  All / General
                  • Relevant NIST 800-53r5 Controls: SC-12 / SC-13 (key management and protection level are where High and Moderate visibly diverge today); CM-6 for the baseline the blueprints encode.
                  Reusability Check
                  •  I have checked if this functionality can be achieved by extending an existing module or blueprint.
                  •  I have verified that this does not duplicate existing functionality.
                  Extending the existing blueprints is exactly what is proposed above — a new parallel tree is the alternative, not the preference. On duplication: #102 is open and covers only the gemini-enterprise blueprint; #101, the platform-level request, is closed as completed. Nothing covers the rest of the blueprint library.
                  Alternatives Considered
                  Deploying the FedRAMP High blueprints into a Moderate environment — works, but over-controls and over-spends, and misrepresents the deployed posture in an SSP. Forking a blueprint per customer — loses reusability and drifts from upstream fixes. Widening #102 to cover all blueprints — possible, but its title and body are scoped to Gemini Enterprise, so a separate request tracks better.
                  Additional Context
                  Verified against the repository tree at v2.13.0 (8f5b67a6) and v3.0.0 (f64ce6cd): the four blueprint families are unchanged between the two tags.
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    enhancementNew feature or request
                    Type
                    Feature
                    Projects
                    No projects
                      Milestone
                      No milestone
                      Relationships
                      None yet
                      Development
                      No branches or pull requests
                      Issue actions
                      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

                      Skip to content
                      [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only #192
                      Open
                      Feature
                      Open
                      [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only#192
                      Feature
                      Labels
                      enhancementNew feature or request
                      Description
                      @JohnHales
                      JohnHales
                      opened on Aug 17, 2026
                      Feature Description
                      blueprints/ contains four families — fedramp-high, il5, stand-alone and third-party-solutions. There is no fedramp-moderate family, and the tree is identical at v2.13.0 and v3.0.0. Meanwhile the platform itself gained FedRAMP Moderate support in v3.0.0: kms_protection_level is now a variable across 0-bootstrap, 1-resman, 2-networking and 3-security, and the networking stage README is now "FedRAMP High / Moderate Network".
                      So an operator can now stand up a FedRAMP Moderate landing zone and then has no blueprint written for that regime to deploy a workload into it.
                      Use Case
                      FedRAMP Moderate is the larger share of federal and state workloads, and the reason to choose it over High is usually cost and operational burden — Moderate permits SOFTWARE protection level where High typically requires HSM, for example. Today that saving stops at the landing-zone boundary: the moment a team deploys Cloud SQL, App Engine, Cloud Run or Gemini Enterprise, the only blueprints available are the FedRAMP High ones, which carry High's controls and costs.
                      The practical outcomes are all bad: deploy the High blueprint into a Moderate environment and inherit controls (and spend) the regime does not require; hand-roll a Moderate variant and lose the reusability the repository exists to provide; or fall back to High for the whole deployment and lose the reason for choosing Moderate.
                      Proposed Solution
                      Either a blueprints/fedramp-moderate/ family, or — probably better given the overlap — a regime input on the existing blueprints so one blueprint can emit the correct posture per regime, in the same spirit as kms_protection_level in the FAST stages. A statement of intent would help on its own: even a README note saying which blueprints are safe to use unmodified under Moderate, and which are not, would unblock planning.
                      Compliance & Deployment Context
                      • Target Deployment Type(s):
                        •  US Region Restricted (e.g., Access Policy constraint)
                        •  FedRAMP Medium
                        •  FedRAMP High
                        •  FedRAMP Moderate
                        •  DoD IL4
                        •  DoD IL5
                        •  All / General
                      • Relevant NIST 800-53r5 Controls: SC-12 / SC-13 (key management and protection level are where High and Moderate visibly diverge today); CM-6 for the baseline the blueprints encode.
                      Reusability Check
                      •  I have checked if this functionality can be achieved by extending an existing module or blueprint.
                      •  I have verified that this does not duplicate existing functionality.
                      Extending the existing blueprints is exactly what is proposed above — a new parallel tree is the alternative, not the preference. On duplication: #102 is open and covers only the gemini-enterprise blueprint; #101, the platform-level request, is closed as completed. Nothing covers the rest of the blueprint library.
                      Alternatives Considered
                      Deploying the FedRAMP High blueprints into a Moderate environment — works, but over-controls and over-spends, and misrepresents the deployed posture in an SSP. Forking a blueprint per customer — loses reusability and drifts from upstream fixes. Widening #102 to cover all blueprints — possible, but its title and body are scoped to Gemini Enterprise, so a separate request tracks better.
                      Additional Context
                      Verified against the repository tree at v2.13.0 (8f5b67a6) and v3.0.0 (f64ce6cd): the four blueprint families are unchanged between the two tags.
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        enhancementNew feature or request
                        Type
                        Feature
                        Projects
                        No projects
                          Milestone
                          No milestone
                          Relationships
                          None yet
                          Development
                          No branches or pull requests
                          Issue actions
                          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

                          Skip to content
                          [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only #192
                          Open
                          Feature
                          Open
                          [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only#192
                          Feature
                          Labels
                          enhancementNew feature or request
                          Description
                          @JohnHales
                          JohnHales
                          opened on Aug 17, 2026
                          Feature Description
                          blueprints/ contains four families — fedramp-high, il5, stand-alone and third-party-solutions. There is no fedramp-moderate family, and the tree is identical at v2.13.0 and v3.0.0. Meanwhile the platform itself gained FedRAMP Moderate support in v3.0.0: kms_protection_level is now a variable across 0-bootstrap, 1-resman, 2-networking and 3-security, and the networking stage README is now "FedRAMP High / Moderate Network".
                          So an operator can now stand up a FedRAMP Moderate landing zone and then has no blueprint written for that regime to deploy a workload into it.
                          Use Case
                          FedRAMP Moderate is the larger share of federal and state workloads, and the reason to choose it over High is usually cost and operational burden — Moderate permits SOFTWARE protection level where High typically requires HSM, for example. Today that saving stops at the landing-zone boundary: the moment a team deploys Cloud SQL, App Engine, Cloud Run or Gemini Enterprise, the only blueprints available are the FedRAMP High ones, which carry High's controls and costs.
                          The practical outcomes are all bad: deploy the High blueprint into a Moderate environment and inherit controls (and spend) the regime does not require; hand-roll a Moderate variant and lose the reusability the repository exists to provide; or fall back to High for the whole deployment and lose the reason for choosing Moderate.
                          Proposed Solution
                          Either a blueprints/fedramp-moderate/ family, or — probably better given the overlap — a regime input on the existing blueprints so one blueprint can emit the correct posture per regime, in the same spirit as kms_protection_level in the FAST stages. A statement of intent would help on its own: even a README note saying which blueprints are safe to use unmodified under Moderate, and which are not, would unblock planning.
                          Compliance & Deployment Context
                          • Target Deployment Type(s):
                            •  US Region Restricted (e.g., Access Policy constraint)
                            •  FedRAMP Medium
                            •  FedRAMP High
                            •  FedRAMP Moderate
                            •  DoD IL4
                            •  DoD IL5
                            •  All / General
                          • Relevant NIST 800-53r5 Controls: SC-12 / SC-13 (key management and protection level are where High and Moderate visibly diverge today); CM-6 for the baseline the blueprints encode.
                          Reusability Check
                          •  I have checked if this functionality can be achieved by extending an existing module or blueprint.
                          •  I have verified that this does not duplicate existing functionality.
                          Extending the existing blueprints is exactly what is proposed above — a new parallel tree is the alternative, not the preference. On duplication: #102 is open and covers only the gemini-enterprise blueprint; #101, the platform-level request, is closed as completed. Nothing covers the rest of the blueprint library.
                          Alternatives Considered
                          Deploying the FedRAMP High blueprints into a Moderate environment — works, but over-controls and over-spends, and misrepresents the deployed posture in an SSP. Forking a blueprint per customer — loses reusability and drifts from upstream fixes. Widening #102 to cover all blueprints — possible, but its title and body are scoped to Gemini Enterprise, so a separate request tracks better.
                          Additional Context
                          Verified against the repository tree at v2.13.0 (8f5b67a6) and v3.0.0 (f64ce6cd): the four blueprint families are unchanged between the two tags.
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            enhancementNew feature or request
                            Type
                            Feature
                            Projects
                            No projects
                              Milestone
                              No milestone
                              Relationships
                              None yet
                              Development
                              No branches or pull requests
                              Issue actions
                              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

                              Skip to content
                              [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only #192
                              Open
                              Feature
                              Open
                              [Feature Request] No FedRAMP Moderate blueprint family — the platform supports FRM but every workload blueprint is still FedRAMP High or IL5 only#192
                              Feature
                              Labels
                              enhancementNew feature or request
                              Description
                              @JohnHales
                              JohnHales
                              opened on Aug 17, 2026
                              Feature Description
                              blueprints/ contains four families — fedramp-high, il5, stand-alone and third-party-solutions. There is no fedramp-moderate family, and the tree is identical at v2.13.0 and v3.0.0. Meanwhile the platform itself gained FedRAMP Moderate support in v3.0.0: kms_protection_level is now a variable across 0-bootstrap, 1-resman, 2-networking and 3-security, and the networking stage README is now "FedRAMP High / Moderate Network".
                              So an operator can now stand up a FedRAMP Moderate landing zone and then has no blueprint written for that regime to deploy a workload into it.
                              Use Case
                              FedRAMP Moderate is the larger share of federal and state workloads, and the reason to choose it over High is usually cost and operational burden — Moderate permits SOFTWARE protection level where High typically requires HSM, for example. Today that saving stops at the landing-zone boundary: the moment a team deploys Cloud SQL, App Engine, Cloud Run or Gemini Enterprise, the only blueprints available are the FedRAMP High ones, which carry High's controls and costs.
                              The practical outcomes are all bad: deploy the High blueprint into a Moderate environment and inherit controls (and spend) the regime does not require; hand-roll a Moderate variant and lose the reusability the repository exists to provide; or fall back to High for the whole deployment and lose the reason for choosing Moderate.
                              Proposed Solution
                              Either a blueprints/fedramp-moderate/ family, or — probably better given the overlap — a regime input on the existing blueprints so one blueprint can emit the correct posture per regime, in the same spirit as kms_protection_level in the FAST stages. A statement of intent would help on its own: even a README note saying which blueprints are safe to use unmodified under Moderate, and which are not, would unblock planning.
                              Compliance & Deployment Context
                              • Target Deployment Type(s):
                                •  US Region Restricted (e.g., Access Policy constraint)
                                •  FedRAMP Medium
                                •  FedRAMP High
                                •  FedRAMP Moderate
                                •  DoD IL4
                                •  DoD IL5
                                •  All / General
                              • Relevant NIST 800-53r5 Controls: SC-12 / SC-13 (key management and protection level are where High and Moderate visibly diverge today); CM-6 for the baseline the blueprints encode.
                              Reusability Check
                              •  I have checked if this functionality can be achieved by extending an existing module or blueprint.
                              •  I have verified that this does not duplicate existing functionality.
                              Extending the existing blueprints is exactly what is proposed above — a new parallel tree is the alternative, not the preference. On duplication: #102 is open and covers only the gemini-enterprise blueprint; #101, the platform-level request, is closed as completed. Nothing covers the rest of the blueprint library.
                              Alternatives Considered
                              Deploying the FedRAMP High blueprints into a Moderate environment — works, but over-controls and over-spends, and misrepresents the deployed posture in an SSP. Forking a blueprint per customer — loses reusability and drifts from upstream fixes. Widening #102 to cover all blueprints — possible, but its title and body are scoped to Gemini Enterprise, so a separate request tracks better.
                              Additional Context
                              Verified against the repository tree at v2.13.0 (8f5b67a6) and v3.0.0 (f64ce6cd): the four blueprint families are unchanged between the two tags.
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                enhancementNew feature or request
                                Type
                                Feature
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  No milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions