diff --git a/backend-compliance/compliance/playbook/__init__.py b/backend-compliance/compliance/playbook/__init__.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..e5ff3670
--- /dev/null
+++ b/backend-compliance/compliance/playbook/__init__.py
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+"""Implementation Playbook — the Berater renderer ("wie komme ich dort hin?").
+
+For one capability it assembles the full implementation journey (why / closes which regulations /
+tools / process / evidence / controls) from curated playbook knowledge + regulatory leverage +
+injected Execution links. `playbooks_for_plan` chains the Optimization Roadmap into per-measure
+playbooks. Pure, deterministic, computed-not-stored. No new corpus, no new meta-model class
+(freeze v1.0). Curated content = expert draft, never normative.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from .engine import build_playbook, playbooks_for_plan
+from .schemas import Playbook, PlaybookStep
+
+__all__ = [
+    "build_playbook",
+    "playbooks_for_plan",
+    "Playbook",
+    "PlaybookStep",
+]
diff --git a/backend-compliance/compliance/playbook/engine.py b/backend-compliance/compliance/playbook/engine.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..5083a46c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/backend-compliance/compliance/playbook/engine.py
@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+"""Implementation Playbook — the Berater renderer ("wie komme ich dort hin?").
+
+After the Capability Delta Engine says WHAT is missing and the Optimization renderer says WHICH
+measure first, the Playbook renderer says HOW to implement it. For one capability it assembles the
+full journey from three sources:
+  - curated playbook KNOWLEDGE (why / tools / process steps / evidence / how others do it) — the
+    Reasoning Knowledge Acquisition layer under `knowledge/implementation_playbooks/`,
+  - the regulatory LEVERAGE (which regulations a delivered capability closes) — reused from the
+    Optimization renderer,
+  - injected Procedure/Control/Evidence links (Execution-owned; empty until linked).
+
+Pure, deterministic, computed-not-stored. Chains optimization -> playbook (acyclic). No new corpus,
+no new meta-model class (freeze v1.0). Python 3.9 compatible.
+
+The curated content is an EXPERT DRAFT, never a normative requirement. When no playbook knowledge
+exists for a capability yet, the renderer emits a `status: missing` stub — the honest signal that
+the bottleneck is CONTENT (Knowledge Acquisition), not software.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Any, Dict, List, Optional
+
+from ..optimization import OptimizationPlan
+from .schemas import Playbook, PlaybookStep
+
+_MISSING_WHY = "(Playbook-Inhalt fehlt — Knowledge Acquisition offen.)"
+_DRAFT_DISCLAIMER = (
+    "Kuratiertes Experten-Wissen (Erstentwurf), KEINE normative Anforderung. Tools/Schritte sind "
+    "Empfehlungen, kein Pflichtkatalog; Controls werden aus der Execution-Schicht injiziert."
+)
+
+
+def _steps(raw: Any) -> List[PlaybookStep]:
+    steps: List[PlaybookStep] = []
+    for i, s in enumerate(raw or [], 1):
+        steps.append(PlaybookStep(order=i, title=str(s.get("title", "")), detail=str(s.get("detail", ""))))
+    return steps
+
+
+def build_playbook(
+    capability_id: str,
+    knowledge: Optional[Dict[str, Any]] = None,
+    closes_regulations: Optional[List[str]] = None,
+    control_links: Optional[List[str]] = None,
+) -> Playbook:
+    """Assemble the implementation journey for ONE capability.
+
+    `knowledge`: the curated playbook dict (None/empty -> a `missing` stub). `closes_regulations`:
+    the regulations a delivered capability closes (leverage, from `covers_targets`). `control_links`:
+    Execution-owned control refs, injected (default empty — no Execution data in Reasoning code).
+    """
+    closes = sorted(set(closes_regulations or []))
+    if not knowledge:
+        return Playbook(
+            capability_id=capability_id, title=capability_id, why=_MISSING_WHY,
+            closes_regulations=closes, leverage=len(closes), controls=list(control_links or []),
+            status="missing", disclaimer=_DRAFT_DISCLAIMER,
+        )
+    return Playbook(
+        capability_id=capability_id,
+        title=str(knowledge.get("title", capability_id)),
+        why=str(knowledge.get("why", "")),
+        closes_regulations=closes,
+        leverage=len(closes),
+        tools=list(knowledge.get("tools", [])),
+        process_steps=_steps(knowledge.get("process_steps")),
+        expected_evidence=list(knowledge.get("expected_evidence", [])),
+        controls=list(control_links or []),
+        how_others_do_it=str(knowledge.get("how_others_do_it", "")),
+        status=str(knowledge.get("status", "draft")),
+        disclaimer=str(knowledge.get("disclaimer", _DRAFT_DISCLAIMER)),
+    )
+
+
+def playbooks_for_plan(
+    plan: OptimizationPlan,
+    knowledge_by_cap: Dict[str, Dict[str, Any]],
+    top_k: Optional[int] = None,
+    control_links_by_cap: Optional[Dict[str, List[str]]] = None,
+) -> List[Playbook]:
+    """Render playbooks for the highest-leverage measures of an OptimizationPlan (Roadmap -> How).
+
+    Walks the ranked measures (top_k, or all) and builds each capability's playbook, using the
+    measure's own `covers` as the regulations it closes. Measures without curated knowledge become
+    `missing` stubs — surfacing exactly where playbook content is still owed.
+    """
+    links = control_links_by_cap or {}
+    measures = plan.ranked_measures if top_k is None else plan.ranked_measures[: max(0, top_k)]
+    return [
+        build_playbook(
+            m.capability_id, knowledge_by_cap.get(m.capability_id),
+            closes_regulations=m.covers, control_links=links.get(m.capability_id),
+        )
+        for m in measures
+    ]
diff --git a/backend-compliance/compliance/playbook/schemas.py b/backend-compliance/compliance/playbook/schemas.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..1060a5e1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/backend-compliance/compliance/playbook/schemas.py
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+"""Schemas for the Implementation Playbook renderer.
+
+A Playbook is a *derived view* (computed-not-stored): it assembles, for one capability, the full
+"wie komme ich dort hin?" journey from (a) curated playbook KNOWLEDGE, (b) the regulatory leverage
+(which regulations a delivered capability closes), and (c) injected Procedure/Control/Evidence links
+(Execution-owned). Nothing here is persisted. No new meta-model class, no graph (freeze v1.0).
+Python 3.9 compatible (no `|` unions).
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import List
+
+from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
+
+
+class PlaybookStep(BaseModel):
+    """One step in the recommended way to stand up a capability."""
+
+    order: int
+    title: str
+    detail: str = ""
+
+
+class Playbook(BaseModel):
+    """The complete implementation journey for ONE capability — the Berater view.
+
+    Answers, in order: Warum? -> Welche Regelwerke schliesst das? -> Welche Tools? -> Welche
+    Prozesse? -> Welche Nachweise? -> Welche Controls? The curated parts (why/tools/steps/evidence/
+    how-others) are an EXPERT DRAFT, not a normative requirement; controls are injected from
+    Execution (may be empty until linked).
+    """
+
+    capability_id: str
+    title: str = ""
+    why: str = ""                                          # why this is required (regulatory rationale)
+    closes_regulations: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)   # leverage: regulations a delivered cap closes
+    leverage: int = 0                                      # = len(closes_regulations)
+    tools: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)         # typical tooling (curated knowledge)
+    process_steps: List[PlaybookStep] = Field(default_factory=list)   # how to stand it up
+    expected_evidence: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)        # artifacts that prove it
+    controls: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list)      # control refs (injected from Execution; may be empty)
+    how_others_do_it: str = ""                             # "wie machen das andere?" (curated)
+    status: str = "draft"                                  # draft -> reviewed -> validated -> proven
+    disclaimer: str = ""                                   # expert draft, not a normative requirement
diff --git a/backend-compliance/knowledge/implementation_playbooks/README.md b/backend-compliance/knowledge/implementation_playbooks/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..336dd8a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/backend-compliance/knowledge/implementation_playbooks/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# Implementation Playbooks — curated knowledge ("wie komme ich dort hin?")
+
+**Curated implementation KNOWLEDGE in machine-readable form — not an algorithm, not runtime code.**
+After the Capability Delta Engine says WHAT is missing and the Optimization renderer says WHICH
+measure first, a Playbook says HOW to implement one capability: why it is required, which tools and
+process steps stand it up, which evidence proves it, which controls it maps to, and which regulatory
+gaps it closes. The renderer is `compliance/playbook/`; this directory holds the content it renders.
+
+Nothing imports these at runtime — `compliance/playbook` reads them and assembles a `Playbook`
+view. Adding or curating a playbook is therefore **non-runtime → no deploy** (ADR-001).
+
+## Playbook vs. regulatory domain (a deliberate distinction)
+
+- A **Playbook** is BreakPilot's OWN knowledge layer: `Capability → recommended approach → tools →
+  process → typical evidence → controls`. It does not introduce a new regulation.
+- A **regulatory domain** (e.g. ISO 14001 → environmental law) is a new *regulatory* knowledge
+  domain (obligations, applicability), owned with Legal Knowledge / Execution.
+
+These scale independently. Once a domain lands, every new capability it needs can immediately be
+embedded into the SAME playbook mechanism — which is why playbooks come first.
+
+## The bottleneck is CONTENT, not software
+
+The renderer is small and done. The value now grows with the **number and depth of playbooks**.
+A capability with no playbook renders as a `status: missing` stub (the honest "content owed" signal).
+This is Reasoning's Knowledge Acquisition responsibility (same as `../transition_patterns/`):
+AI produces the first draft offline; BreakPilot reviews, versions and OWNS the library.
+
+## Maturity lifecycle
+
+`draft (L1) → reviewed (L2, internal) → validated (L3, domain expert) → proven (L4, field)`.
+Curated content is an **EXPERT DRAFT, never a normative requirement**; tools/steps are recommended
+practice, not a mandatory catalogue. Controls are **injected from the Execution layer** (may be
+empty until linked) — no Execution data lives in the playbook content or in Reasoning product code.
+
+## Schema (per file)
+
+`id` · `capability_id` · `status` · `title` · `why` · `tools[]` · `process_steps[{title, detail}]`
+· `expected_evidence[]` · `typical_controls[]` (indicative) · `how_others_do_it` · `disclaimer`.
+`closes_regulations` / `leverage` are NOT stored here — the renderer supplies them from the
+Optimization leverage (`covers_targets`), so one playbook serves every regulation it closes.
+
+## Catalogue
+
+| Playbook | Capability | status |
+|---|---|---|
+| `playbook_sbom_creation_v1.yaml` | sbom_creation | `draft` (L1) |
+| `playbook_coordinated_vulnerability_disclosure_v1.yaml` | coordinated_vulnerability_disclosure (PSIRT) | `draft` (L1) |
+
+Next candidates (high-leverage CRA/MaschinenVO delta): `security_update_support_period` ·
+`secure_signed_update_distribution` · `product_cyber_risk_assessment`.
diff --git a/backend-compliance/knowledge/implementation_playbooks/playbook_coordinated_vulnerability_disclosure_v1.yaml b/backend-compliance/knowledge/implementation_playbooks/playbook_coordinated_vulnerability_disclosure_v1.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..21665302
--- /dev/null
+++ b/backend-compliance/knowledge/implementation_playbooks/playbook_coordinated_vulnerability_disclosure_v1.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# Implementation Playbook — curated KNOWLEDGE (the "wie komme ich dort hin?" layer), not runtime code.
+# Capability: coordinated_vulnerability_disclosure (PSIRT). Expert FIRST DRAFT — a product-security
+# practitioner would validate this; NOT a normative requirement.
+
+id: PB-coordinated_vulnerability_disclosure-v1
+capability_id: coordinated_vulnerability_disclosure
+status: draft                      # draft -> reviewed -> validated -> proven
+version: 1
+
+title: "Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) / PSIRT aufbauen"
+
+why: >
+  Der CRA verlangt eine Richtlinie zur koordinierten Offenlegung von Schwachstellen und einen
+  Meldekanal (Annex I Teil II) sowie deren Bearbeitung. Forscher und Nutzer brauchen einen Weg,
+  Schwachstellen verantwortungsvoll zu melden; der Hersteller braucht einen Prozess, um zu
+  triagieren, zu beheben und abgestimmt zu veröffentlichen. Diese Funktion heißt PSIRT (Product
+  Security Incident Response Team).
+
+tools:
+  - "security.txt (RFC 9116) — maschinenlesbarer Sicherheitskontakt"
+  - "Veröffentlichte CVD-Policy (Webseite)"
+  - "Dediziertes PSIRT-Postfach + PGP-Schlüssel"
+  - "Triage-/Ticketsystem mit CVSS-Bewertung"
+  - "CSAF (Common Security Advisory Framework) für maschinenlesbare Advisories"
+  - "CVE Numbering Authority (CNA) — optional, für eigene CVE-Vergabe"
+
+process_steps:
+  - title: "CVD-Policy + Kontakt veröffentlichen"
+    detail: "Öffentliche Richtlinie (Scope, Safe-Harbor, Fristen) + security.txt mit Kontakt/PGP."
+  - title: "Meldekanal betreiben"
+    detail: "PSIRT-Postfach/Portal, verschlüsselte Übermittlung, Eingangsbestätigung mit SLA."
+  - title: "Triage + Schweregrad"
+    detail: "Eingang reproduzieren, CVSS bewerten, Betroffenheit über die SBOM bestimmen."
+  - title: "Behebung koordinieren"
+    detail: "Fix + Offenlegungsfrist mit dem Melder abstimmen (Coordinated Disclosure)."
+  - title: "CVE zuweisen"
+    detail: "Über die eigene oder eine partnernde CNA eine CVE-ID vergeben."
+  - title: "Advisory veröffentlichen + Nutzer benachrichtigen"
+    detail: "Maschinenlesbares CSAF-Advisory; betroffene Nutzer/Behörden informieren (verbindet mit Meldepflicht)."
+
+expected_evidence:
+  - "Veröffentlichte CVD-Policy + security.txt mit Kontakt"
+  - "PSIRT-Triage-Runbook (Rollen, Fristen, CVSS)"
+  - "Beispiel-Advisory (CSAF oder gleichwertig)"
+
+typical_controls:                  # INDIKATIV — echte Control-Zuordnung kommt aus der Execution-Schicht
+  - "vulnerability_disclosure"
+  - "incident_response"
+
+how_others_do_it: >
+  Verbreitete Praxis: security.txt + öffentliche CVD-Policy, ein PSIRT-Postfach mit PGP, Triage per
+  CVSS und Betroffenheitsanalyse über die SBOM, abgestimmte Veröffentlichung als CSAF-Advisory.
+  Viele Hersteller werden selbst CNA, um CVEs zeitnah vergeben zu können.
+
+disclaimer: >
+  Kuratiertes Experten-Wissen (Erstentwurf), KEINE normative Anforderung. Werkzeug- und
+  Schrittempfehlungen sind bewährte Praxis, kein Pflichtkatalog. Review durch eine:n PSIRT-/
+  Product-Security-Expert:in ausstehend (status: draft).
diff --git a/backend-compliance/knowledge/implementation_playbooks/playbook_sbom_creation_v1.yaml b/backend-compliance/knowledge/implementation_playbooks/playbook_sbom_creation_v1.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..dc8145ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/backend-compliance/knowledge/implementation_playbooks/playbook_sbom_creation_v1.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# Implementation Playbook — curated KNOWLEDGE (the "wie komme ich dort hin?" layer), not runtime code.
+# Capability: sbom_creation. Expert FIRST DRAFT — an SBOM practitioner would validate this; it is
+# NOT a normative requirement. The renderer (compliance/playbook) assembles it into the journey.
+
+id: PB-sbom_creation-v1
+capability_id: sbom_creation
+status: draft                      # draft -> reviewed -> validated -> proven
+version: 1
+
+title: "Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) aufbauen und betreiben"
+
+why: >
+  Der CRA verlangt von Herstellern, die Komponenten ihres Produkts zu identifizieren und zu
+  dokumentieren (Schwachstellenbehandlung, Annex I Teil II). Eine SBOM ist das maschinenlesbare
+  Inventar aller (auch transitiven) Software-Bestandteile mit Version und Lizenz. Ohne SBOM kann
+  niemand verlässlich sagen, welche Produkte von einer neuen Schwachstelle (CVE) betroffen sind —
+  SBOM ist damit die Voraussetzung für Schwachstellenüberwachung, Security-Updates und Meldepflichten.
+
+tools:
+  - "CycloneDX (Format, OWASP)"
+  - "SPDX (Format, Linux Foundation)"
+  - "Syft (Generator, Container/Filesystem)"
+  - "cdxgen (Generator, Multi-Ökosystem)"
+  - "Trivy (Generator + Scan)"
+  - "OWASP Dependency-Track (Verwaltung + kontinuierliche Überwachung)"
+
+process_steps:
+  - title: "Format festlegen"
+    detail: "CycloneDX oder SPDX wählen (maschinenlesbar). CycloneDX ist im Security-Kontext verbreitet."
+  - title: "Automatisch im Build erzeugen"
+    detail: "SBOM-Generierung (Syft/cdxgen/Trivy) als Schritt in die CI/CD-Pipeline einbauen — pro Build, nicht manuell."
+  - title: "Transitive Abhängigkeiten + Versionen + Lizenzen erfassen"
+    detail: "Nicht nur direkte Dependencies; gerade transitive Komponenten tragen die meisten CVEs."
+  - title: "Pro Release versionieren und ablegen"
+    detail: "Jede ausgelieferte Produktversion bekommt ihre eigene, unveränderliche SBOM (Nachvollziehbarkeit)."
+  - title: "An Schwachstellenüberwachung anbinden"
+    detail: "SBOM in Dependency-Track laden -> kontinuierlicher Abgleich gegen neue CVEs/Advisories."
+  - title: "Release-Gate setzen"
+    detail: "Auslieferung nur mit gültiger SBOM (Reifegrad-Schritt) — verbindet SBOM mit dem Update-Prozess."
+
+expected_evidence:
+  - "Maschinenlesbare SBOM (CycloneDX/SPDX) je ausgelieferter Produktversion"
+  - "CI-Job-Konfiguration, die die SBOM automatisch erzeugt"
+  - "Dependency-Track-Projekt (oder gleichwertig) mit laufender Überwachung"
+
+typical_controls:                  # INDIKATIV — echte Control-Zuordnung kommt aus der Execution-Schicht
+  - "component_inventory"
+  - "supply_chain_risk_management"
+
+how_others_do_it: >
+  Verbreitete Praxis: CycloneDX automatisch in der CI via Syft/cdxgen erzeugen und nach
+  OWASP Dependency-Track pushen, das kontinuierlich gegen neue CVEs prüft. Reifere Organisationen
+  gaten Releases auf das Vorhandensein einer SBOM und teilen sie auf Anfrage mit Kunden/Behörden.
+
+disclaimer: >
+  Kuratiertes Experten-Wissen (Erstentwurf), KEINE normative Anforderung. Werkzeug- und
+  Schrittempfehlungen sind Beispiele bewährter Praxis, kein Pflichtkatalog. Review durch eine:n
+  Product-Security-Expert:in ausstehend (status: draft).
diff --git a/backend-compliance/reference_scenarios/_helpers.py b/backend-compliance/reference_scenarios/_helpers.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..45ae94ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/backend-compliance/reference_scenarios/_helpers.py
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+# ruff: noqa
+# mypy: ignore-errors
+"""Rendering helpers for the Reference Scenario Suite generator.
+
+Holds the shared mutable output buffers (OUT, ROLLUP) and the small markdown helpers so the
+generator script (`generate.py`) stays under the LOC budget. Not product code; not imported by
+the app — only by the generator (run via `PYTHONPATH=. python3 reference_scenarios/generate.py`).
+"""
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import List, Tuple
+
+Row = Tuple[str, str, str]
+OUT: List[str] = []
+ROLLUP: List[str] = []
+
+
+def w(s: str = "") -> None:
+    OUT.append(s)
+
+
+def coverage_table(rows: List[Row]) -> None:
+    w("**Architecture Coverage**")
+    w("")
+    w("| Layer | Status | Hinweis |")
+    w("|---|---|---|")
+    for layer, status, note in rows:
+        w("| %s | **%s** | %s |" % (layer, status, note))
+        ROLLUP.append(status)
+    w("")
+
+
+def reg_map_block(rmap) -> None:
+    w("**Expected Regulatory Map**")
+    w("")
+    w("> " + rmap.executive_summary)
+    w("")
+    for v in rmap.applicable_regulations:
+        obs = ", ".join(o.obligation_id for o in v.obligations) or v.obligations_note
+        w("- **%s** (%s) — Pflichten: %s" % (v.regulation_id, v.name, obs))
+    for u in rmap.uncertain_regulations:
+        w("- _unsicher_ %s — fehlt: %s" % (u.regulation_id, ", ".join(u.missing_facts) or "-"))
+    for ov in rmap.overlaps:
+        w("- Overlap %s: %s" % (ov.overlap_group_id, ", ".join(ov.shared_obligations)))
+    for ev, ids in rmap.shared_evidence.items():
+        w("- 1 Nachweis `%s` => %d Pflichten" % (ev, len(ids)))
+    w("")
+
+
+def unsupported_block(rmap) -> None:
+    w("**Expected Unsupported Domains**")
+    w("")
+    if not rmap.unsupported_domains:
+        w("- keine — alle getriggerten Domaenen sind im Korpus")
+    for d in rmap.unsupported_domains:
+        w("- `%s` (Trigger: %s) -> %s" % (d.domain, d.trigger, d.note))
+    w("")
+
+
+def interp_status(verdict_value: str) -> str:
+    return "PARTIAL" if verdict_value in ("uncertain", "unsupported") else "PASS"
diff --git a/backend-compliance/reference_scenarios/generate.py b/backend-compliance/reference_scenarios/generate.py
index 3f480b34..d0976ebf 100644
--- a/backend-compliance/reference_scenarios/generate.py
+++ b/backend-compliance/reference_scenarios/generate.py
@@ -39,65 +39,19 @@ from compliance.transition_reasoning import (
     regulatory_convergence,
 )
 from compliance.optimization import roadmap_from_delta, select_within_budget
+from compliance.playbook import playbooks_for_plan
 import os
 import yaml
 
-Row = Tuple[str, str, str]
-OUT: List[str] = []
-ROLLUP: List[str] = []
-
-
-def w(s: str = "") -> None:
-    OUT.append(s)
-
-
-def coverage_table(rows: List[Row]) -> None:
-    w("**Architecture Coverage**")
-    w("")
-    w("| Layer | Status | Hinweis |")
-    w("|---|---|---|")
-    for layer, status, note in rows:
-        w("| %s | **%s** | %s |" % (layer, status, note))
-        ROLLUP.append(status)
-    w("")
-
-
-def reg_map_block(rmap) -> None:
-    w("**Expected Regulatory Map**")
-    w("")
-    w("> " + rmap.executive_summary)
-    w("")
-    for v in rmap.applicable_regulations:
-        obs = ", ".join(o.obligation_id for o in v.obligations) or v.obligations_note
-        w("- **%s** (%s) — Pflichten: %s" % (v.regulation_id, v.name, obs))
-    for u in rmap.uncertain_regulations:
-        w("- _unsicher_ %s — fehlt: %s" % (u.regulation_id, ", ".join(u.missing_facts) or "-"))
-    for ov in rmap.overlaps:
-        w("- Overlap %s: %s" % (ov.overlap_group_id, ", ".join(ov.shared_obligations)))
-    for ev, ids in rmap.shared_evidence.items():
-        w("- 1 Nachweis `%s` => %d Pflichten" % (ev, len(ids)))
-    w("")
-
-
-def unsupported_block(rmap) -> None:
-    w("**Expected Unsupported Domains**")
-    w("")
-    if not rmap.unsupported_domains:
-        w("- keine — alle getriggerten Domaenen sind im Korpus")
-    for d in rmap.unsupported_domains:
-        w("- `%s` (Trigger: %s) -> %s" % (d.domain, d.trigger, d.note))
-    w("")
-
+from _helpers import (  # noqa: E402  (script-dir module; keeps generate.py under the LOC budget)
+    OUT, ROLLUP, Row, w, coverage_table, reg_map_block, unsupported_block, interp_status,
+)
 
 ISO_MAP = {"ISO27001": CapabilityMappingEntry(
     capability_ids=["cap_incident_response", "cap_supplier_management", "cap_asset_management"],
     confidence=Confidence.MEDIUM)}
 
 
-def interp_status(verdict_value: str) -> str:
-    return "PARTIAL" if verdict_value in ("uncertain", "unsupported") else "PASS"
-
-
 w("# Reference Scenario Suite v1")
 w("")
 w("> **Kein Doku-Artefakt — die erste Ground Truth / Living Reference Suite.** Erzeugt aus den "
@@ -442,6 +396,48 @@ coverage_table([
     ("Budget-Priorisierung", "PASS", "Top-5 → %.0f%% der identifizierten Anforderungen" % (_bud.coverage_ratio * 100)),
 ])
 
+# ── Implementation Playbook — Berater-Renderer (wie komme ich dort hin?) ───
+w("## Implementation Playbook — wie komme ich dort hin? (Berater-Renderer)")
+w("")
+w('_Nach „was fehlt?" (Delta) und „womit anfangen?" (Hebel) die nächste Ebene: **wie umsetzen?** Pro Maßnahme eine komplette Reise aus kuratiertem Wissen + Hebel + (injizierten) Execution-Links. Inhalt ist der Engpass, nicht die Software._')
+w("")
+_pb_dir = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), "..", "knowledge", "implementation_playbooks")
+_pb_kb = {}
+for _pf in sorted(os.listdir(_pb_dir)):
+    if _pf.endswith(".yaml"):
+        with open(os.path.join(_pb_dir, _pf), encoding="utf-8") as _h:
+            _pd = yaml.safe_load(_h)
+        _pb_kb[_pd["capability_id"]] = _pd
+_pbs = playbooks_for_plan(_opt, _pb_kb)   # chain Roadmap -> Playbook over the SAME delta
+_have = [p for p in _pbs if p.status != "missing"]
+_miss = [p for p in _pbs if p.status == "missing"]
+w("**Reise pro Maßnahme (aus der Roadmap):** %d von %d Maßnahmen haben ein Playbook; %d brauchen noch Inhalt (Knowledge Acquisition)." % (len(_have), len(_pbs), len(_miss)))
+w("")
+_show = next((p for p in _pbs if p.capability_id == "sbom_creation"), None)
+if _show:
+    w("**Beispielreise — `%s`** _(%s, schließt %s)_" % (_show.capability_id, _show.status, "+".join(_show.closes_regulations) or "—"))
+    w("> **Warum?** %s" % _show.why.strip())
+    w("- **Tools:** %s" % ", ".join(_show.tools))
+    w("- **Prozess:** %s" % " → ".join(s.title for s in _show.process_steps))
+    w("- **Nachweise:** %s" % ", ".join(_show.expected_evidence))
+    w("- **Wie andere es tun:** %s" % _show.how_others_do_it.strip())
+    w("")
+w("**Roadmap → Implementation (Top-Maßnahmen nach Hebel):**")
+w("")
+w("| Maßnahme | Hebel | schließt | Playbook |")
+w("|---|---|---|---|")
+for _p in _pbs[:6]:
+    w("| `%s` | %d | %s | %s |" % (_p.capability_id, _p.leverage, "+".join(_p.closes_regulations) or "—",
+                                    ("✓ " + _p.status) if _p.status != "missing" else "**fehlt (Inhalt)**"))
+w("")
+w("_Derselbe Capability-Strang, neuer Renderer: aus Diagnose wird Beratung. Die `fehlt`-Einträge sind der ehrliche Content-Backlog (höchster Hebel zuerst befüllen)._")
+w("")
+coverage_table([
+    ("Implementation Playbook Renderer", "PASS", "Reise pro Capability (why/tools/process/evidence/controls)"),
+    ("Roadmap → Playbook (Verkettung)", "PASS", "%d/%d Maßnahmen mit Playbook" % (len(_have), len(_pbs))),
+    ("Playbook-Inhalt (Knowledge)", "TODO" if _miss else "PASS", "%d Capabilities brauchen noch Inhalt" % len(_miss)),
+])
+
 # ── Epics + roll-up ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
 w("## Gaps → Epics (Backlog — nur erfasst, NICHT implementiert)")
 w("")
diff --git a/backend-compliance/reference_scenarios/reference_scenario_suite_v1.md b/backend-compliance/reference_scenarios/reference_scenario_suite_v1.md
index 7dc9ae6d..43bd50e7 100644
--- a/backend-compliance/reference_scenarios/reference_scenario_suite_v1.md
+++ b/backend-compliance/reference_scenarios/reference_scenario_suite_v1.md
@@ -262,6 +262,40 @@ _Eine Wahrheit, zwei Renderer: dasselbe Capability Delta liefert dem Auditor **F
 | Roadmap/Management Renderer (Hebel) | **PASS** | 16 identifizierte Anforderungen aus 2 Regelwerken -> 12 Massnahmen (Ø Hebel 1.3). |
 | Budget-Priorisierung | **PASS** | Top-5 → 56% der identifizierten Anforderungen |
 
+## Implementation Playbook — wie komme ich dort hin? (Berater-Renderer)
+
+_Nach „was fehlt?" (Delta) und „womit anfangen?" (Hebel) die nächste Ebene: **wie umsetzen?** Pro Maßnahme eine komplette Reise aus kuratiertem Wissen + Hebel + (injizierten) Execution-Links. Inhalt ist der Engpass, nicht die Software._
+
+**Reise pro Maßnahme (aus der Roadmap):** 2 von 12 Maßnahmen haben ein Playbook; 10 brauchen noch Inhalt (Knowledge Acquisition).
+
+**Beispielreise — `sbom_creation`** _(draft, schließt CRA)_
+> **Warum?** Der CRA verlangt von Herstellern, die Komponenten ihres Produkts zu identifizieren und zu dokumentieren (Schwachstellenbehandlung, Annex I Teil II). Eine SBOM ist das maschinenlesbare Inventar aller (auch transitiven) Software-Bestandteile mit Version und Lizenz. Ohne SBOM kann niemand verlässlich sagen, welche Produkte von einer neuen Schwachstelle (CVE) betroffen sind — SBOM ist damit die Voraussetzung für Schwachstellenüberwachung, Security-Updates und Meldepflichten.
+- **Tools:** CycloneDX (Format, OWASP), SPDX (Format, Linux Foundation), Syft (Generator, Container/Filesystem), cdxgen (Generator, Multi-Ökosystem), Trivy (Generator + Scan), OWASP Dependency-Track (Verwaltung + kontinuierliche Überwachung)
+- **Prozess:** Format festlegen → Automatisch im Build erzeugen → Transitive Abhängigkeiten + Versionen + Lizenzen erfassen → Pro Release versionieren und ablegen → An Schwachstellenüberwachung anbinden → Release-Gate setzen
+- **Nachweise:** Maschinenlesbare SBOM (CycloneDX/SPDX) je ausgelieferter Produktversion, CI-Job-Konfiguration, die die SBOM automatisch erzeugt, Dependency-Track-Projekt (oder gleichwertig) mit laufender Überwachung
+- **Wie andere es tun:** Verbreitete Praxis: CycloneDX automatisch in der CI via Syft/cdxgen erzeugen und nach OWASP Dependency-Track pushen, das kontinuierlich gegen neue CVEs prüft. Reifere Organisationen gaten Releases auf das Vorhandensein einer SBOM und teilen sie auf Anfrage mit Kunden/Behörden.
+
+**Roadmap → Implementation (Top-Maßnahmen nach Hebel):**
+
+| Maßnahme | Hebel | schließt | Playbook |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| `ce_conformity_assessment_and_technical_documentation` | 2 | CRA+MaschinenVO | **fehlt (Inhalt)** |
+| `product_cyber_risk_assessment` | 2 | CRA+MaschinenVO | **fehlt (Inhalt)** |
+| `protection_against_corruption_of_safety_functions` | 2 | CRA+MaschinenVO | **fehlt (Inhalt)** |
+| `secure_signed_update_distribution` | 2 | CRA+MaschinenVO | **fehlt (Inhalt)** |
+| `coordinated_vulnerability_disclosure` | 1 | CRA | ✓ draft |
+| `exploited_vuln_and_incident_reporting` | 1 | CRA | **fehlt (Inhalt)** |
+
+_Derselbe Capability-Strang, neuer Renderer: aus Diagnose wird Beratung. Die `fehlt`-Einträge sind der ehrliche Content-Backlog (höchster Hebel zuerst befüllen)._
+
+**Architecture Coverage**
+
+| Layer | Status | Hinweis |
+|---|---|---|
+| Implementation Playbook Renderer | **PASS** | Reise pro Capability (why/tools/process/evidence/controls) |
+| Roadmap → Playbook (Verkettung) | **PASS** | 2/12 Maßnahmen mit Playbook |
+| Playbook-Inhalt (Knowledge) | **TODO** | 10 Capabilities brauchen noch Inhalt |
+
 ## Gaps → Epics (Backlog — nur erfasst, NICHT implementiert)
 
 | Epic | Titel | schliesst Coverage-Luecke |
@@ -273,6 +307,6 @@ _Eine Wahrheit, zwei Renderer: dasselbe Capability Delta liefert dem Auditor **F
 
 ## Suite-Status (Roll-up)
 
-- Coverage-Zellen gesamt: **32**
-- PASS: **24** · PARTIAL: 3 · UNSUPPORTED: 1 · TODO: 3 · N/A: 1 · NEEDS_FACTS: 0
+- Coverage-Zellen gesamt: **35**
+- PASS: **26** · PARTIAL: 3 · UNSUPPORTED: 1 · TODO: 4 · N/A: 1 · NEEDS_FACTS: 0
 - Fortschritt = PASS-Anteil steigt, wenn Epics RS-001…004 landen (objektiver Maßstab, kein LOC).
diff --git a/backend-compliance/tests/test_playbook.py b/backend-compliance/tests/test_playbook.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..158997f5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/backend-compliance/tests/test_playbook.py
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+"""Tests for the Implementation Playbook renderer (the Berater view, "wie komme ich dort hin?").
+
+Acceptance: for one capability, assemble the journey (why / closes-which-regulations / tools /
+process / evidence / controls) from curated knowledge + leverage + injected Execution links; chain
+the Optimization Roadmap into per-measure playbooks; surface capabilities without content as honest
+`missing` stubs. Curated content is an expert draft, never normative.
+"""
+
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from compliance.optimization import regulatory_leverage
+from compliance.playbook import Playbook, build_playbook, playbooks_for_plan
+
+SBOM = {
+    "title": "SBOM aufbauen",
+    "why": "CRA verlangt ein Komponenten-Inventar.",
+    "tools": ["CycloneDX", "Syft"],
+    "process_steps": [{"title": "Format wählen", "detail": "CycloneDX"}, {"title": "In CI erzeugen", "detail": ""}],
+    "expected_evidence": ["sbom_per_release"],
+    "how_others_do_it": "CI + Dependency-Track.",
+    "status": "draft",
+}
+
+
+def test_build_playbook_full_journey():
+    pb = build_playbook("sbom_creation", SBOM, closes_regulations=["CRA", "MaschinenVO"], control_links=["component_inventory"])
+    assert pb.title == "SBOM aufbauen" and pb.status == "draft"
+    assert pb.closes_regulations == ["CRA", "MaschinenVO"] and pb.leverage == 2
+    assert pb.tools == ["CycloneDX", "Syft"]
+    assert [s.order for s in pb.process_steps] == [1, 2]
+    assert pb.process_steps[0].title == "Format wählen"
+    assert pb.expected_evidence == ["sbom_per_release"]
+    assert pb.controls == ["component_inventory"]            # injected from Execution
+    assert pb.disclaimer                                     # always carries the expert-draft caveat
+
+
+def test_missing_knowledge_is_honest_stub():
+    pb = build_playbook("product_cyber_risk_assessment", None, closes_regulations=["CRA", "MaschinenVO"])
+    assert pb.status == "missing"                            # the content-owed signal
+    assert pb.leverage == 2 and pb.closes_regulations == ["CRA", "MaschinenVO"]  # leverage still known
+    assert pb.tools == [] and pb.process_steps == []
+    assert "Knowledge Acquisition" in pb.why
+
+
+def test_closes_regulations_deduped_and_sorted():
+    pb = build_playbook("x", SBOM, closes_regulations=["MaschinenVO", "CRA", "CRA"])
+    assert pb.closes_regulations == ["CRA", "MaschinenVO"] and pb.leverage == 2
+
+
+def test_controls_default_empty_no_execution_data():
+    pb = build_playbook("x", SBOM, closes_regulations=["CRA"])
+    assert pb.controls == []                                 # no Execution data unless injected
+
+
+def test_playbooks_for_plan_orders_by_leverage_and_stubs_missing():
+    caps = {"sbom_creation": ["CRA"], "pcra": ["CRA", "MaschinenVO"], "guards": ["MaschinenVO"]}
+    plan = regulatory_leverage(caps)
+    pbs = playbooks_for_plan(plan, {"sbom_creation": SBOM}, top_k=3)
+    assert [p.capability_id for p in pbs][0] == "pcra"       # highest leverage first
+    by = {p.capability_id: p for p in pbs}
+    assert by["pcra"].status == "missing" and by["pcra"].leverage == 2
+    assert by["sbom_creation"].status == "draft"            # has content
+    assert by["guards"].status == "missing"
+
+
+def test_playbooks_for_plan_top_k_and_injected_controls():
+    caps = {"a": ["CRA", "MaschinenVO"], "b": ["CRA"], "c": ["CRA"]}
+    plan = regulatory_leverage(caps)
+    pbs = playbooks_for_plan(plan, {}, top_k=1, control_links_by_cap={"a": ["ctrl_1"]})
+    assert len(pbs) == 1 and pbs[0].capability_id == "a"
+    assert pbs[0].controls == ["ctrl_1"]
+
+
+def test_playbooks_for_plan_empty():
+    plan = regulatory_leverage({})
+    assert playbooks_for_plan(plan, {}) == []
+
+
+def test_deterministic():
+    caps = {"a": ["CRA", "MaschinenVO"], "b": ["CRA"]}
+    plan = regulatory_leverage(caps)
+    a = [p.capability_id for p in playbooks_for_plan(plan, {})]
+    b = [p.capability_id for p in playbooks_for_plan(plan, {})]
+    assert a == b
+
+
+def test_returns_playbook_type():
+    assert isinstance(build_playbook("x", None), Playbook)
diff --git a/docs-src/architecture/adr/ADR-004-implementation-playbooks.md b/docs-src/architecture/adr/ADR-004-implementation-playbooks.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..cb123f4c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs-src/architecture/adr/ADR-004-implementation-playbooks.md
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# ADR-004: Implementation Playbooks — a renderer plus a knowledge layer
+
+- **Status:** Accepted
+- **Datum:** 2026-06-27
+- **Typ:** Architektur-Entscheidung
+- **Bezug:** [ADR-003](ADR-003-capability-delta-engine-with-renderers.md), [ADR-002](ADR-002-transition-is-data-not-architecture.md), Architektur-Freeze v1.0, [[transition-reasoning]]
+
+## Kontext
+
+BreakPilot beantwortet inzwischen drei Fragen: *Was gilt?* (Reasoning), *Was fehlt?*
+(Capability Delta), *Womit anfangen?* (Optimization). Danach fragt der Geschäftsführer fast immer:
+**„Wie komme ich dort hin?"** — nicht *was*, sondern *wie* (z. B. „Top-Maßnahme: PSIRT — und wie
+baue ich einen PSIRT auf? Welche Tools? Wie machen das andere?").
+
+Diese Umsetzungs-Ebene ist weder Reasoning noch Gap noch Roadmap. Das Risiko: sie als neue Engine
+zu bauen — obwohl ~95 % der Daten bereits existieren (`Capability → Procedure → Control → Evidence`).
+Sie muss nur **anders gerendert** werden.
+
+## Entscheidung
+
+1. **Ein Implementation Playbook ist ein RENDERER über einer Capability** (`compliance/playbook`),
+   kein neuer Datenpfad. Es setzt die Reise zusammen aus: kuratiertem Playbook-Wissen + der
+   regulatorischen **Leverage** (welche Regelwerke eine umgesetzte Capability schließt, aus der
+   Optimization) + **injizierten** Procedure/Control/Evidence-Links (Execution-owned).
+
+2. **Playbook ≠ regulatorische Domäne (bewusste Unterscheidung):**
+   - Ein **Playbook** ist BreakPilots EIGENE Wissensschicht (`Capability → empfohlene Vorgehensweise
+     → Tools → Prozess → typische Nachweise → Controls`). Es führt KEIN neues Regelwerk ein.
+   - Eine **regulatorische Domäne** (z. B. ISO 14001 → Umweltrecht) ist neues *regulatorisches*
+     Wissen (Obligations, Anwendbarkeit), Eigentum von Legal Knowledge / Execution.
+   Beide skalieren unabhängig — und jede neue Domäne dockt sofort an denselben Playbook-Mechanismus an.
+
+3. **Der Engpass ist INHALT, nicht Software.** Der Renderer ist klein und fertig; der Wert wächst mit
+   Zahl und Tiefe der Playbooks. Eine Capability ohne Playbook rendert als `status: missing`-Stub —
+   das ehrliche „Content owed"-Signal. Playbook-Inhalt ist Reasoning-**Knowledge-Acquisition**
+   (wie `knowledge/transition_patterns/`): KI liefert den Erstentwurf, BreakPilot reviewt/versioniert/besitzt.
+
+## Konsequenzen
+
+- **Aus Diagnose wird Beratung:** derselbe Capability-Strang, der Auditor-Fragen (Interview) und
+  GF-Maßnahmen (Roadmap) liefert, liefert nun auch die Umsetzungsreise (Playbook). Konsistent mit
+  ADR-003 (ein Modell, viele Renderer).
+- **Reifegrad + Ehrlichkeit:** Playbook-Inhalt ist `draft → reviewed → validated → proven`, ein
+  **Experten-Entwurf, KEINE normative Anforderung**; Tools/Schritte sind Empfehlungen. Controls
+  werden aus Execution injiziert — keine Execution-Daten im Reasoning-Produktcode.
+- **Freeze-konform:** kein neues Metamodell, kein neuer Graph, kein neuer Corpus — `Playbook` ist
+  eine abgeleitete Sicht (computed-not-stored). Abhängigkeit `playbook → optimization →
+  transition_reasoning` ist azyklisch; die Capability Delta Engine bleibt hermetisch.
+- **Priorisierung:** Playbooks kommen VOR neuen Domänen (ISO 14001), damit jede künftige Capability
+  sofort eine Umsetzungsreise bekommt. Content-Backlog = höchster Hebel zuerst.
+- Diese ADR ist non-runtime → kein Deploy (siehe [ADR-001](ADR-001-runtime-deploy-policy.md)).