# Feature Specification: Cross-Domain Progress Indicator Semantics Audit

**Feature Branch**: `278-cross-domain-indicator-audit`  
**Created**: 2026-05-06  
**Status**: Implemented docs-only audit artifact; ready for manual review  
**Input**: Manual promotion of `docs/product/spec-candidates.md` section `Cross-Domain Progress / Indicator Semantics candidate group`, specifically `Candidate 8 - Cross-Domain Progress Indicator Semantics Audit`, into the active package at `specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/`. This slice is repository-governance and standards groundwork only. Related specs `266`, `268`, `270`, `271`, and `272` remain context only and are not reopened.

## Spec Candidate Check *(mandatory - SPEC-GATE-001)*

- **Problem**: TenantPilot already exposes multiple progress-like cues across execution, coverage, readiness, health, review/export generation, and tenant summary surfaces, but the product does not yet maintain one repo-based inventory that states what those cues actually measure.
- **Today's failure**: The same bar, percentage, or status-like cue can be read as execution progress on one surface and as coverage, readiness, risk, usage, score, or generation state on another. That invites false trust signals, wrong follow-up priorities, and future UI drift when later work reuses the same visual language without shared semantics.
- **User-visible improvement**: Product, design, and engineering reviewers get one explicit audit foundation that tells them what each indicator-like cue means, where it is misleading, and which bounded follow-up lane owns the correction. This makes later runtime work faster, safer, and more honest.
- **Smallest enterprise-capable version**: perform a repo-based audit of current indicator-like cues, classify each cue into one semantic category, record ambiguity and misunderstanding risk, define the standards-delta input for future governance rules, and name explicit follow-up candidates for contract, component, quality-gate, and migration work. No application behavior changes are included.
- **Explicit non-goals**: no shared component implementation, no runtime contract or presenter rollout, no domain migration pass, no charting or analytics program, no score recalculation, no runtime UI rewrite, no asset change, no data migration, and no reopening of the OperationRun progress specs as part of this slice.
- **Permanent complexity imported**: one repository-scoped indicator inventory vocabulary, one audit table format, one risk and disposition matrix, one standards-delta outline, and one explicit follow-up map. No runtime models, services, states, or test families are introduced.
- **Why now**: the OperationRun progress lane is already being formalized in related specs, which makes the broader cross-domain ambiguity easier to see and cheaper to fix before more surfaces drift further. This is also the smallest safe unspecced slice in the current backlog.
- **Why not local**: the ambiguity already spans multiple domains and shared operator surfaces. Local cleanup in one widget or one presenter would not prevent the same misread from recurring elsewhere.
- **Approval class**: Core Enterprise
- **Red flags triggered**: `many surfaces, little value` risk, `sounds like foundation`, and `new taxonomy`. Defense: this slice stays docs-first, repo-based, and explicitly stops before any runtime framework, component system, or migration program.
- **Score**: Nutzen: 2 | Dringlichkeit: 2 | Scope: 2 | Komplexitaet: 1 | Produktnaehe: 1 | Wiederverwendung: 2 | **Gesamt: 10/12**
- **Decision**: approve

## Spec Scope Fields *(mandatory)*

- **Scope**: workspace + tenant + canonical-view
- **Primary Routes**:
  - existing tenant dashboard and tenant-scoped widget surfaces such as `/admin/t/{tenant}`
  - existing canonical operations and activity surfaces such as `/admin/operations` and `/admin/operations/{run}`
  - existing baseline, review, evidence, and export-related surfaces already represented by current presenters and builders
  - no new routes and no route behavior changes in this slice
- **Data Ownership**: no runtime workspace-owned or tenant-owned tables change. The only new output in scope is repository-governance material such as an indicator inventory, risk matrix, standards-delta input, and follow-up map.
- **RBAC**: no membership or capability changes are introduced. The audit must record audience mode and entitlement assumptions for each inventoried cue where those assumptions affect likely interpretation or leakage risk.

**Implemented repository outputs**:

- `specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/inventory.md`
- `specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/follow-up-map.md`
- `specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/standards-delta.md`
- bounded updates to `docs/ui/tenantpilot-enterprise-ui-standards.md`, `docs/product/spec-candidates.md`, and `docs/product/roadmap.md`

For canonical-view specs, the spec MUST define:

- **Default filter behavior when tenant-context is active**: no runtime filter changes are allowed in this slice. The audit must record whether each canonical-view cue is tenant-prefiltered, tenantless aggregate, or workspace aggregate today, so future work does not blur tenant scope accidentally.
- **Explicit entitlement checks preventing cross-tenant leakage**: no entitlement behavior changes are allowed in this slice. If an inventoried cue appears to communicate tenant-specific truth on a canonical surface without clear scope signals or entitlement assumptions, the audit must flag that cue for follow-up rather than silently fixing it here.

## Cross-Cutting / Shared Pattern Reuse *(mandatory when the feature touches notifications, status messaging, action links, header actions, dashboard signals/cards, alerts, navigation entry points, evidence/report viewers, or any other existing shared operator interaction family; otherwise write `N/A - no shared interaction family touched`)*

- **Cross-cutting feature?**: yes
- **Interaction class(es)**: status messaging, progress and activity feedback, KPI rows, dashboard signals and readiness blocks, evidence and review summaries, and generation-state cues
- **Systems touched**: `docs/ui/tenantpilot-enterprise-ui-standards.md`, `App\Support\OpsUx\OperationUxPresenter`, `App\Filament\Widgets\Inventory\InventoryKpiHeader`, `App\Filament\Widgets\Dashboard\RecoveryReadiness`, `App\Services\Baselines\SnapshotRendering\BaselineSnapshotPresenter`, `App\Services\ReviewPackService`, `App\Support\TenantDashboard\TenantDashboardSummaryBuilder`, and existing badge and summary primitives already used by those seams
- **Existing pattern(s) to extend**: the current OperationRun activity-feedback pattern in the UI standards, current badge semantics, current dashboard summary and readiness builders, and current governance-artifact summary surfaces
- **Shared contract / presenter / builder / renderer to reuse**: the audit must treat the existing standards document plus the named presenters and builders as repo-real source surfaces to inventory, not as targets to rewrite in this slice
- **Why the existing shared path is sufficient or insufficient**: those paths are sufficient as current evidence of real product cues, but insufficient as a product-wide semantics layer because they explain only domain-local meaning and do not classify cross-domain indicator language above those domains
- **Allowed deviation and why**: none. If an existing cue does not fit the allowed categories cleanly, it must be marked `unknown/ambiguous` and routed to a product decision or follow-up spec rather than hidden behind a new ad hoc label
- **Consistency impact**: the audit must preserve a hard semantic separation between execution progress, activity state, coverage, completion, health, readiness, risk, pressure, usage, capacity, score, and generation state. Customer-safe wording must not imply execution progress when a cue actually measures a different category
- **Review focus**: reviewers must verify that the audit is repo-based, categories are mutually exclusive at the cue level, recommendations stay bounded, and future work is split into explicit follow-up candidates rather than bundled into this slice

## OperationRun UX Impact *(mandatory when the feature creates, queues, deduplicates, resumes, blocks, completes, or deep-links to an `OperationRun`; otherwise write `N/A - no OperationRun start or link semantics touched`)*

- **Touches OperationRun start/completion/link UX?**: no
- **Shared OperationRun UX contract/layer reused**: `N/A` - OperationRun semantics are audited as one existing category input only
- **Delegated start/completion UX behaviors**: `N/A`
- **Local surface-owned behavior that remains**: `N/A`
- **Queued DB-notification policy**: `N/A`
- **Terminal notification path**: `N/A`
- **Exception required?**: none

## Provider Boundary / Platform Core Check *(mandatory when the feature changes shared provider/platform seams, identity scope, governed-subject taxonomy, compare strategy selection, provider connection descriptors, or operator vocabulary that may leak provider-specific semantics into platform-core truth; otherwise write `N/A - no shared provider/platform boundary touched`)*

- **Shared provider/platform boundary touched?**: yes
- **Boundary classification**: mixed
- **Seams affected**: product-wide indicator vocabulary in standards and audit artifacts, provider-health and permission-posture cues, and platform-core dashboard, review, baseline, and execution summary language
- **Neutral platform terms preserved or introduced**: `indicator`, `execution progress`, `activity state`, `coverage`, `completion`, `health`, `readiness`, `risk`, `pressure`, `usage`, `capacity`, `score`, and `generation state`
- **Provider-specific semantics retained and why**: provider health and permission posture remain provider-owned examples because they describe provider readiness or access posture, not generic platform success or execution completion
- **Why this does not deepen provider coupling accidentally**: the audit classifies what a cue means, not which provider produced it. Provider-specific cues remain labeled as provider-owned examples inside a neutral platform-wide semantics vocabulary
- **Follow-up path**: follow-up-spec for any later runtime contract or component work that needs stronger provider/platform boundary rules

## UI / Surface Guardrail Impact *(mandatory when operator-facing surfaces are changed; otherwise write `N/A`)*

`N/A - no operator-facing surface change. This slice audits and documents existing repo-real surfaces only.`

## Decision-First Surface Role *(mandatory when operator-facing surfaces are changed)*

`N/A - no operator-facing surface change. Existing surfaces are audit inputs only.`

## Audience-Aware Disclosure *(mandatory when operator-facing surfaces are changed)*

`N/A - no operator-facing surface change. Audience-mode concerns are captured as audit fields and follow-up risk notes only.`

## UI/UX Surface Classification *(mandatory when operator-facing surfaces are changed)*

`N/A - no operator-facing surface change. This slice does not add or reclassify a list, detail, queue, audit, config, or report surface.`

## Operator Surface Contract *(mandatory when operator-facing surfaces are changed)*

`N/A - no operator-facing surface change. This slice does not create or refactor an operator-facing page contract.`

**UI Action Matrix**: `N/A - no Filament Resource, RelationManager, or Page action surface is added or changed in this slice.`

## Proportionality Review *(mandatory when structural complexity is introduced)*

- **New source of truth?**: no runtime source of truth. Existing domain truth remains authoritative. The audit only documents current repo-real cues and their meaning
- **New persisted entity/table/artifact?**: yes - repository-governance artifacts only, such as an indicator inventory, risk matrix, standards-delta input, and follow-up map. No application persistence is introduced
- **New abstraction?**: no runtime abstraction
- **New enum/state/reason family?**: no runtime state family. The allowed categories are documentation-only audit vocabulary in this slice
- **New cross-domain UI framework/taxonomy?**: yes - a documentation-only indicator classification taxonomy and audit vocabulary that future specs may later operationalize
- **Current operator problem**: operators and reviewers can currently see the same visual language used for incompatible meanings, which undermines trust and makes later corrections harder to scope safely
- **Existing structure is insufficient because**: current presenters, widgets, services, and UI standards capture local domain truth, but none inventory or classify indicator meaning across the product above those local seams
- **Narrowest correct implementation**: audit the current repo, classify each cue once, record risk and recommendation, define standards-delta input, and map bounded follow-up candidates without changing runtime code
- **Ownership cost**: ongoing maintenance of the inventory vocabulary, risk matrix, and standards guidance plus review discipline to keep future work aligned; no runtime code burden is added yet
- **Alternative intentionally rejected**: immediate shared contract and component work, local cue-by-cue cleanup, and broad dashboard or design-system rewrites were rejected because they would widen scope before the product knows which cues actually exist and what they mean
- **Release truth**: current-release truth and future-release preparation. The audit is grounded in current repo-real surfaces and is intentionally the preparation layer for later runtime follow-up work

### Compatibility posture

This feature assumes a pre-production environment.

Backward compatibility, legacy aliases, migration shims, historical fixtures, and compatibility-specific tests are out of scope unless a later follow-up spec explicitly requires them.

Canonical clarification and follow-up planning are preferred over preserving ambiguous indicator language.

## Testing / Lane / Runtime Impact *(mandatory for runtime behavior changes)*

- **Test purpose / classification**: `N/A` - docs and governance only
- **Validation lane(s)**: `N/A`
- **Why this classification and these lanes are sufficient**: this slice changes only repository-spec guidance and follow-up planning. It does not change runtime behavior, data, tests, routes, assets, or authorization
- **New or expanded test families**: none
- **Fixture / helper cost impact**: none
- **Heavy-family visibility / justification**: none
- **Special surface test profile**: `N/A`
- **Standard-native relief or required special coverage**: `N/A`
- **Reviewer handoff**: reviewers must confirm that the package remains docs/governance-first, that no runtime migration or shared component work is hidden inside the scope, and that related specs remain context only
- **Budget / baseline / trend impact**: none
- **Escalation needed**: follow-up-spec for later contract, component, quality-gate, and migration work
- **Active feature PR close-out entry**: Guardrail
- **Implementation validation commands**:

```bash
export PATH="/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:$PATH" && git diff --check -- specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/spec.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/plan.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/research.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/data-model.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/quickstart.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/checklists/requirements.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/contracts/cross-domain-indicator-audit.logical.openapi.yaml specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/tasks.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/inventory.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/follow-up-map.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/standards-delta.md docs/ui/tenantpilot-enterprise-ui-standards.md docs/product/spec-candidates.md docs/product/roadmap.md

export PATH="/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:$PATH" && git diff -- specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit docs/ui/tenantpilot-enterprise-ui-standards.md docs/product/spec-candidates.md docs/product/roadmap.md

export PATH="/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:$PATH" && rg -n -- "standards patch lane|metric/indicator contract foundation|shared indicator component system|quality gate lane|domain migration lane" specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/spec.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/plan.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/research.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/data-model.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/quickstart.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/checklists/requirements.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/tasks.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/inventory.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/follow-up-map.md specs/278-cross-domain-indicator-audit/standards-delta.md docs/ui/tenantpilot-enterprise-ui-standards.md docs/product/spec-candidates.md docs/product/roadmap.md
```

## User Scenarios & Testing *(mandatory)*

### User Story 1 - Classify existing indicator cues (Priority: P1)

As a product or engineering lead, I need one repo-based audit that tells me what each progress-like cue actually measures, so execution progress is not conflated with coverage, readiness, risk, usage, score, or generation state.

**Why this priority**: this is the core trust and scope-control problem. Without one inventory and semantic category per cue, later cleanup or component work will still miss ambiguous surfaces and repeat drift.

**Independent Test**: review the finished audit against the named repo anchors and current surface search results, then confirm each inventoried cue records its visible pattern, meaning, data basis, misunderstanding risk, and recommendation.

**Acceptance Scenarios**:

1. **Given** a repo-real cue in `OperationUxPresenter`, `InventoryKpiHeader`, `RecoveryReadiness`, `BaselineSnapshotPresenter`, `ReviewPackService`, or `TenantDashboardSummaryBuilder`, **When** the audit is completed, **Then** that cue has an inventory entry with surface, label, pattern, data source, category, determinism, likely user reading, risk, and recommendation.
2. **Given** two cues that use a similar visual pattern but represent different product truth, **When** they are inventoried, **Then** they are assigned different semantic categories with explicit notes about why they must not share one meaning.

---

### User Story 2 - Prepare bounded follow-up work (Priority: P1)

As a maintainer preparing later runtime work, I need each audited cue mapped to a bounded disposition and next lane, so future contract, component, quality-gate, or migration work can start without repeating discovery or widening scope accidentally.

**Why this priority**: the audit only creates value if it compresses the next decision and prevents one giant cleanup spec.

**Independent Test**: inspect the audit recommendations and follow-up map, then verify that every ambiguous or risky cue points to exactly one bounded next action such as standards patch, product decision, contract follow-up, component follow-up, migration follow-up, or defer.

**Acceptance Scenarios**:

1. **Given** an audited cue that is ambiguous or misleading, **When** the recommendation is recorded, **Then** it is routed to exactly one bounded follow-up class instead of being left as a generic TODO.
2. **Given** a cue that is already semantically honest, **When** the audit is completed, **Then** the recommendation can explicitly keep it as-is rather than forcing unnecessary migration work.

---

### User Story 3 - Feed future standards review consistently (Priority: P2)

As a design or review owner, I need the audit to produce standards-delta input above individual domains, so future indicator work can be reviewed against one product-wide language instead of local interpretation.

**Why this priority**: the standards delta is how this docs-first slice prevents the next round of drift without pretending to solve everything in code immediately.

**Independent Test**: review the standards input derived from the audit and confirm it defines allowed categories, anti-patterns, and future follow-up ownership without changing runtime UI in the same slice.

**Acceptance Scenarios**:

1. **Given** the audit package is complete, **When** a reviewer checks the standards-delta input, **Then** they can see which indicator categories are allowed and which ambiguous patterns are forbidden or deferred.
2. **Given** a future indicator proposal, **When** it is compared against this package, **Then** the reviewer can decide whether it belongs to an existing category, needs a product decision, or belongs in a later follow-up spec.

### Edge Cases

- One surface may expose more than one indicator-like cue, with each cue requiring its own category rather than one surface-wide label.
- A cue may use a percentage or progress-bar pattern but have no truthful denominator, direction, or freshness guarantee.
- A `0`, empty state, or `No current result` label may mean missing data rather than healthy completion and must not be classified as success by default.
- A score, readiness signal, risk level, or usage meter may visually resemble execution progress and therefore needs explicit disambiguation.
- Service-level or telemetry-adjacent signals discovered during the audit may not yet be directly visible on a user-facing surface; those signals must be marked as supporting context or out of scope rather than treated as shipped UI truth automatically.

## Requirements *(mandatory)*

**Constitution alignment summary**: This slice introduces no Microsoft Graph calls, no write behavior, no `OperationRun` start/completion logic, no runtime UI implementation, no provider contract changes, and no application persistence. It is an audit and standards foundation over existing repo-real indicator surfaces only.

### Functional Requirements

- **FR-001**: The package MUST inventory every current indicator-like cue in the agreed repo scope, including at minimum the repo anchors named in this spec and any additional current cues discovered through repo-based search.
- **FR-002**: Each inventory entry MUST capture, at minimum, the source file or component, surface, domain, visible label or wording, visual pattern, data source, calculation basis, semantic category, determinism, likely user interpretation, misunderstanding risk, and recommended disposition.
- **FR-003**: Each inventoried cue MUST be assigned exactly one of these categories: `execution progress`, `activity state`, `coverage`, `completion`, `health`, `readiness`, `risk`, `pressure`, `usage`, `capacity`, `score`, `generation state`, or `unknown/ambiguous`.
- **FR-004**: The audit MUST explicitly separate OperationRun execution progress and activity semantics from coverage, readiness, risk, usage, score, and generation-state cues, and it MUST record related Specs `268`, `270`, `271`, and `272` as context-only guardrails rather than reopening them.
- **FR-005**: Any cue whose wording, visual treatment, or calculation basis can plausibly mislead an operator MUST be marked with an explicit risk note and exactly one disposition from this set: `keep as-is`, `copy-only clarification`, `standards clarification`, `product decision`, `contract follow-up`, `shared-component follow-up`, `migration follow-up`, or `defer`.
- **FR-006**: The audit MUST record when missing data, stale data, or unknown denominators can make a cue misleading, even if the cue is otherwise valid in its own domain.
- **FR-007**: The package MUST produce standards-delta input for `docs/ui/tenantpilot-enterprise-ui-standards.md` that defines allowed indicator categories, determinate-progress eligibility, direction and freshness rules, customer-safe wording constraints, dashboard constraints, and forbidden anti-patterns.
- **FR-008**: The package MUST produce explicit follow-up candidates or follow-up ownership notes for later work, including the standards patch lane, metric/indicator contract foundation, shared indicator component system, quality gate lane, and domain migration lane.
- **FR-009**: The package MUST remain repository-based and docs/governance-first. It MUST NOT introduce runtime shared components, new presenters, UI rewrites, charts, analytics, score recalculation, migrations, or application code changes.
- **FR-010**: The package MUST document the repo anchors and related-spec guardrails needed for later work so a future spec author does not need to repeat cross-repo discovery to begin the next bounded slice.
- **FR-011**: The audit MUST preserve provider and platform boundary clarity by marking provider-owned cues as provider-specific examples rather than defaulting product-wide semantics to Microsoft-shaped language.
- **FR-012**: The package MUST state explicitly that this slice is an audit and standards foundation over existing repo-real indicator surfaces, not a runtime implementation pass.

### Authorization and Safety Requirements

- **AR-001**: No RBAC, membership, entitlement, or route-access behavior may change in this slice.
- **AR-002**: If the audit discovers a cue that appears to hide or blur workspace or tenant scope, the package MUST record that as a follow-up risk or product decision rather than silently changing runtime behavior here.
- **AR-003**: No destructive action, confirmation flow, global search behavior, or audit-log behavior is introduced or changed in this slice.

### Non-Functional Requirements

- **NFR-001**: The package MUST remain compatible with the current Filament v5 and Livewire v4 baseline by not introducing any runtime Filament, Livewire, or panel wiring changes.
- **NFR-002**: Provider registration remains unchanged in `apps/platform/bootstrap/providers.php`; this slice must not alter provider registration or panel configuration.
- **NFR-003**: No global search resource, asset registration, polling behavior, or runtime page layout may change in this slice.
- **NFR-004**: The audit outputs MUST be reviewable as repository artifacts without requiring a running application, migrations, or seed data.
- **NFR-005**: Future runtime work derived from this package must remain bounded and must treat this package as the classification and standards input layer, not as permission to do a broad design-system rewrite.

## Non-Goals

- Implementing a shared metric or indicator contract in application code
- Building shared progress or indicator components
- Migrating existing domains to a new component family
- Rewriting tenant dashboard, recovery, inventory, baseline, review, or operations UI in this slice
- Adding charts, analytics dashboards, score engines, or usage accounting
- Recalculating any existing score, readiness, or coverage truth
- Changing authorization, routes, notifications, or OperationRun behavior
- Reopening related specs that already own OperationRun execution semantics

## Assumptions

- The active auto-prep queue is empty, so this manual promotion is the explicit product decision needed to prepare the next safe slice.
- Existing specs `266`, `268`, `270`, `271`, and `272` remain valid context and guardrails; they are not rewritten by this package.
- The repo anchors named in this spec are representative current seams, and the implemented inventory also includes confirmed additional indicator-like cues found through bounded search within the agreed scope.
- The artifact files produced by this implementation are `inventory.md`, `follow-up-map.md`, and `standards-delta.md`; they remain documentation, standards, inventory, and audit outputs rather than runtime code.
- Because this slice is docs-only, no production compatibility or deployment migration behavior is required.

## Risks

- The audit could widen into a pseudo-framework or shared component design exercise if the follow-up boundaries are not enforced.
- Some cues may legitimately require product judgment because their visible wording or denominator is not deterministically recoverable from current repo truth.
- The inventory may become stale if new indicator-like cues land before the follow-up standards patch or quality gate is in place.
- Provider-specific readiness or health cues may tempt future work to leak provider semantics into platform-core vocabulary if follow-up scopes are not kept narrow.

## UI Action Matrix *(mandatory when Filament is changed)*

`N/A - no Filament Resource, RelationManager, or Page is added or modified in this slice.`

### Key Entities *(include if feature involves data)*

- **Indicator Inventory Entry**: one audited cue in a current repo-real surface, recording what the cue looks like, what it measures, where it appears, and why it may mislead.
- **Indicator Category**: the semantic class assigned to one cue, such as execution progress, coverage, readiness, risk, usage, score, or generation state.
- **Recommendation Disposition**: the bounded next action for an inventoried cue, such as keep as-is, copy-only clarification, standards clarification, product decision, contract follow-up, component follow-up, migration follow-up, or defer.
- **Standards Delta Input**: the repository-governance guidance derived from the audit that later work can apply to `docs/ui/tenantpilot-enterprise-ui-standards.md`.
- **Follow-Up Map**: the explicit set of later spec lanes that consume this audit, including standards, contract, component, quality-gate, and migration work.

## Success Criteria *(mandatory)*

### Measurable Outcomes

- **SC-001**: Every indicator-like cue discovered in the agreed repo scope has exactly one inventory entry, exactly one semantic category, and exactly one recommendation disposition.
- **SC-002**: Every audited cue that could plausibly be mistaken for execution progress while measuring something else is explicitly flagged with a misunderstanding risk and a bounded follow-up path.
- **SC-003**: Product and engineering review can trace every follow-up item produced by this package to one bounded lane without reopening unrelated runtime specs or repeating cross-repo discovery.
- **SC-004**: The completed package clearly separates execution progress from coverage, readiness, health, risk, usage, score, and generation-state semantics in all audited examples.
- **SC-005**: The package is accepted without any application-code, route, asset, data, or runtime UI changes in the same slice.

## Candidate Selection Rationale

- **Selected candidate**: `Candidate 8 - Cross-Domain Progress Indicator Semantics Audit`
- **Source location**: `docs/product/spec-candidates.md`, section `Cross-Domain Progress / Indicator Semantics candidate group`
- **Why selected**: this is the smallest safe unspecced slice that can reduce enterprise UX and trust drift immediately without widening into runtime implementation. It sits above the already-specced OperationRun progress lane and prevents future execution-progress semantics from being conflated with other indicator meanings across the product.
- **Why close alternatives were deferred**:
  - `Workspace & Tenant Closure Lifecycle v1` is broader and higher-risk than this audit slice
  - `273 - Tenant Dashboard Active Operations Summary Card` remains conditional on visible post-268 dashboard drift
  - a first governed AI runtime consumer is later and less immediate than current indicator trust drift
  - shared contract, component, quality-gate, and migration work are explicitly deferred to later follow-up candidates
- **Roadmap relationship**: near-term enterprise UX and trust guardrail sitting above the OperationRun progress semantics lane; it constrains future indicator work across dashboards, evidence, readiness, review, and generation-state surfaces
- **Related-spec guardrail check**: there was no existing `specs/273-*` or `specs/278-*` package at preparation time. Existing specs `266`, `268`, `270`, `271`, and `272` already cover adjacent or lower-level execution semantics and therefore remain context only
