# UI-040 Environment Review Detail

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Route | `/admin/workspaces/{workspace}/environments/{environment}/environment-reviews/{record}` |
| Source | `EnvironmentReviewResource::view` |
| Area / scope | Reviews / environment detail |
| Archetype | Evidence / Audit |
| Design depth | Strategic Surface |
| Repo truth | repo-verified |
| Screenshot | `Spec 351 browser proof: specs/351-review-output-resolve-actions-v1/artifacts/screenshots/02-mutable-blocked.png` |
| Browser status | Reached through direct environment routes for mutable-blocked and ready-draft states, plus the existing customer-workspace handoff regression path. |

## First Five Seconds

The page should answer three questions without forcing the operator to reconstruct the review from raw sections:

1. what is the review status
2. what is the output readiness
3. what is the safe next step

## Productization Review

- Decision-first: improved by the shared resolution-case summary.
- Evidence-first: limitations and technical details remain visible below the summary.
- Context: environment-bound review detail with optional customer-workspace handoff context.
- Customer/auditor safety: high because this page explains whether the current released output is share-safe.
- Diagnostics: sections and raw detail stay secondary to the first-screen output guidance.

## Information Inventory

Default content should show lifecycle status, output guidance, publication/sharing boundary, evidence snapshot linkage, current export linkage, and section completeness.

## Dangerous Actions

Lifecycle actions such as refresh, publish, export, create-next-review, and archive remain source-owned. In customer-workspace detail mode, the repeated primary action rail should stay suppressed so the operator does not get duplicate or conflicting calls to action.

## Spec 349 Follow-up

Spec 349 separated review status, output readiness, and publication/sharing state while keeping the customer-workspace detail mode free of repeated CTA rails.

## Spec 350 Follow-up

Spec 350 adds the shared review-output resolution-case handoff:

- the first-screen summary now uses the same issue / reason / impact / next-action reading direction as the workspace
- source refs and evidence refs remain repo-backed in the underlying contract
- customer-workspace detail mode still suppresses repeated action buttons and keeps the limitations/technical-details path as the primary inspection flow

## Spec 351 Follow-up

Spec 351 aligns detail-surface next-step semantics to the same resolve-action mapper without creating a duplicate CTA rail inside the guidance card.

- mutable blocked reviews now resolve to the existing `refresh_review` header action
- ready mutable reviews now resolve to the existing `publish_review` header action with the current publication-reason flow
- published blocked reviews can align to `create_next_review` or `open_successor_review` only when the action/target is repo-real
- customer-workspace detail mode remains suppress-primary and keeps the explanation/proof path intact
- the workspace remains the only surface that groups supporting secondary actions; detail keeps a single dominant lifecycle rail and explanation/proof follow-through

### Browser proof

- Spec351 screenshots: `specs/351-review-output-resolve-actions-v1/artifacts/screenshots/`
- Verified states:
  - `02-mutable-blocked.png` shows the `Refresh review` confirmation path
  - `03-ready-draft.png` shows the `Publish review` modal with the existing reason field

## Spec 356 Follow-up

Spec 356 keeps this detail page as the owner-side explanation surface but replaces the customer-workspace detail CTA with one dominant rendered-report handoff.

- customer-workspace detail mode now opens the rendered stakeholder report instead of leading with ZIP download
- the rendered-report affordance only appears when the current export review pack is ready, current, and not expired
- ZIP contract truth and appendix semantics remain secondary proof, not a second competing primary CTA

## Target Direction

Keep this surface audit- and evidence-oriented. If future work broadens it beyond the review-output path, that should happen through a dedicated detail-surface spec rather than hidden incremental drift.