Monitoring fit comparison
Heartbeat monitoring or expectation monitoring?
Heartbeat monitoring asks whether a process checked in on time. Expectation monitoring can also evaluate whether it succeeded, finished within a duration budget, and produced the required output. Use a heartbeat to detect silence. Use expectations when a timely check-in can still hide a failed, incomplete, slow, or low-output result.
What does heartbeat monitoring prove?
A heartbeat proves that a process checked in within an expected window. That is useful evidence for a simple liveness question: “Did this process report recently?”
What does a heartbeat not prove?
A check-in alone does not show whether the process finished successfully, stayed within its duration budget, or produced the required record count or artifact. Those questions need more evidence from the Run.
What do expectations add?
A Glnc Check can combine interval or cron timing with terminal Run status, optional start and completion budgets, and output rules over reported metadata. The status reason can therefore point to the specific timing, execution, or output condition that was not met.
When is heartbeat-only monitoring the right fit?
A heartbeat is the simpler fit when your only question is whether a process checked in on time. It asks less of the reporter and remains a clear signal for silence.
Can you combine both approaches?
Yes. A Check can use timing to detect a missing Run and evaluate status or metadata when the Run arrives. That keeps the liveness question and the outcome question attached to the same recurring piece of work.
Next step
Define one consequential expectation.
Read the API contract before reporting production evidence, or join the private beta to start with one recurring automation.