Why is this Epic required for deployment and adoption support for the 17.1 OSP feature set, except for 17.1 functionality that has been intentionally re-prioritized to 18-Feature Release-1 or later, and in-place update to post-18.0.0 releases.

This is code that is present and permanently "enabled", and is a feature that has been backported to 17.1. It needs to work and be supported.

Do you have capacity to complete the work, testing and documentation required for this Epic and is all the remaining work captured in Jira stories?

The work is done, including test automation. What remains is ensuring that the tests run in component CI.

What is the probability and severity of the issue? I.e. the overall risk

The issue that this prevents from happening is compute host renaming. Probability is low, but severity is pretty catastrophic.

Does this affect specific configurations, hardware, environmental factors, etc.?

This is universally applicable.

Are any partners relying on this functionality in order to ship an ecosystem product?

No.

What proportion of our customers could hit this issue?

The issue that this prevents from happening is compute host renaming. Probability is low, but severity is pretty catastrophic.

Does this happen for only a specific use case?

The issue that this prevents from happening is compute host renaming.

What proportion of our CI infrastructure, automation, and test cases does this issue impact?

None.

Is this a regression in supported functionality from a previous release?

Yes, this was backported to 17.1.

Is there a clear workaround?

No.

Is there potential doc impact?

KCS already exists: https://access.redhat.com/articles/7040980

If this is a UI issue

NA

Overall context and effort – is the overall impact bigger/worse than the bug in isolation?

The effort remaining is pretty low, so no.