TenantAtlas/specs/305-feature-readiness-gate-audit/spec.md

Feature Specification: Feature Readiness Gate Audit

Feature Branch: 305-feature-readiness-gate-audit Created: 2026-05-15 Status: Ready for docs-only audit Input: User description: "Create the next spec as 305-feature-readiness-gate-audit. Docs-only audit whether TenantPilot after Specs 301-304 is ready to restart the first real productization feature, likely Decision Register & Approval Workflow v1."

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

• Problem: Specs 301-304 changed the admin runtime, workspace/environment surface model, legacy tenant-panel posture, and navigation assumptions. Before starting the next productization feature, the repo needs a grounded readiness gate rather than relying on roadmap intent.
• Today's failure: Without this audit, the next feature spec can accidentally duplicate already implemented Decision Register work, depend on stale product docs, or reintroduce assumptions from the retired legacy tenant panel.
• User-visible improvement: Productization planning gets a clear GO / GO WITH CONDITIONS / NO-GO signal backed by repo evidence, with blockers and recommended actions called out before feature work starts.
• Smallest enterprise-capable version: A docs-only readiness artifact that reviews the 12 requested areas, records evidence paths, marks readiness with the required status set, and explicitly evaluates whether Decision Register & Approval Workflow v1 may start as the next feature spec.
• Explicit non-goals: No runtime code changes, migrations, new UI surfaces, tests changes, broad refactors, roadmap rewrite, legacy compatibility restoration, or Decision Register feature specification/implementation.
• Permanent complexity imported: One docs artifact (feature-readiness-audit.md) plus this spec, plan, tasks, and requirements checklist. No new runtime model, enum, service, status family, route, UI concept, or test family.
• Why now: The repo just completed foundation and retirement specs 301-304; the next feature should only start once workspace-first admin runtime, route retirement, governance foundations, evidence, findings, reviews, RBAC, audit, navigation, and test lanes are confirmed feature-ready.
• Why not local: A local note would not create an auditable Spec Kit gate, would not force the Decision Register duplication check, and would not preserve the evidence trail for the next feature candidate.
• Approval class: Cleanup.
• Red flags triggered: Potential duplicate feature work, stale roadmap/spec-candidate truth, and broad cross-surface audit scope. These are handled by keeping the output docs-only, bounded to repo evidence, and explicitly forbidding runtime changes.
• Score: Nutzen: 2 | Dringlichkeit: 2 | Scope: 2 | Komplexitaet: 2 | Produktnaehe: 2 | Wiederverwendung: 2 | Gesamt: 12/12
• Decision: approve.

Spec Scope Fields (mandatory)

• Scope: canonical-view.
• Primary Routes: No route changes. Audit evidence includes /admin, /admin/workspaces/{workspace}, /admin/workspaces/{workspace}/environments/{environment}, OperationRun detail links, governance pages, evidence/report/review resources, and retired legacy route families.
• Data Ownership: No data changes. Audit references existing workspace-owned and tenant/environment-owned records only.
• RBAC: No RBAC change. Audit verifies repo evidence for workspace membership, capabilities, 404/403 behavior, and audit/event foundations.

For canonical-view specs:

• Default filter behavior when tenant-context is active: N/A - no runtime query or page behavior changes.
• Explicit entitlement checks preventing cross-tenant leakage: N/A - audit-only. Existing tests and resource traits are reviewed as evidence.

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, audit-only.
• Interaction class(es): navigation, routing, global search, OperationRun links, governance inbox, findings, evidence/report viewers, review packs, RBAC, audit/event foundations, and test lanes.
• Systems touched: Documentation only under specs/305-feature-readiness-gate-audit/.
• Existing pattern(s) to extend: Spec Kit spec/plan/tasks/checklist workflow and repo-local feature audit artifacts.
• Shared contract / presenter / builder / renderer to reuse: No runtime shared contract is changed. Audit evidence may cite WorkspaceScopedTenantRoutes, ScopesGlobalSearchToTenant, OperationRunLinks, governance builders, policies, capabilities, and audit log support.
• Why the existing shared path is sufficient or insufficient: Existing runtime paths are sufficient for evidence gathering; this spec only records readiness.
• Allowed deviation and why: none.
• Consistency impact: The audit must use the exact readiness status vocabulary: ready, ready with caveat, blocker, not applicable.
• Review focus: Confirm that the audit stays repo-based and does not begin Decision Register feature design.

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.
• Delegated start/completion UX behaviors: N/A.
• Local surface-owned behavior that remains: none.
• 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?: no.
• Boundary classification: N/A.
• Seams affected: none.
• Neutral platform terms preserved or introduced: N/A.
• Provider-specific semantics retained and why: none.
• Why this does not deepen provider coupling accidentally: The work is documentation-only and audits existing repo truth.
• Follow-up path: none.

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

Surface / Change	Operator-facing surface change?	Native vs Custom	Shared-Family Relevance	State Layers Touched	Exception Needed?	Low-Impact / N/A Note
Feature readiness audit artifact	no	N/A	navigation, governance, evidence, reviews, RBAC, audit evidence only	none	no	N/A - repository workflow only

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

N/A - no operator-facing surface change.

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

N/A - no operator-facing surface change.

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

N/A - no operator-facing surface change.

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

N/A - no operator-facing surface change.

Proportionality Review (mandatory when structural complexity is introduced)

• New source of truth?: no runtime source of truth. The audit artifact is a Spec Kit decision record for the next-spec gate.
• New persisted entity/table/artifact?: yes, documentation artifact only: feature-readiness-audit.md.
• New abstraction?: no.
• New enum/state/reason family?: no.
• New cross-domain UI framework/taxonomy?: no.
• Current operator problem: The productization queue needs a repo-backed readiness decision before the next feature spec starts.
• Existing structure is insufficient because: Roadmap and spec-candidate documents can drift from implemented repo truth; a gate artifact makes the current decision auditable.
• Narrowest correct implementation: One audit artifact plus normal Spec Kit prep files.
• Ownership cost: Reviewers must read the audit during the next-feature gate. No runtime maintenance cost.
• Alternative intentionally rejected: Starting the Decision Register spec immediately was rejected because repo evidence shows existing Decision Register implementation and tests that must be reconciled first.
• Release truth: Current-release preparation.

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 explicitly required by this spec.

Canonical replacement is preferred over preservation.

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

• Test purpose / classification: Feature, Unit, and Browser-lane evidence review only. No new tests.
• Validation lane(s): confidence and browser-existing evidence, using focused commands where practical.
• Why this classification and these lanes are sufficient: The change is documentation-only; existing focused tests are used to validate that the foundation surfaces remain green.
• New or expanded test families: none.
• Fixture / helper cost impact: none.
• Heavy-family visibility / justification: No heavy family is added. Existing browser smoke tests may be cited, but docs-only work does not require adding or changing browser tests.
• Special surface test profile: global-context-shell, standard-native-filament, shared-detail-family, monitoring-state-page evidence only.
• Standard-native relief or required special coverage: ordinary focused repo validation only.
• Reviewer handoff: Review feature-readiness-audit.md, confirm no application/test changes, and rerun the listed focused commands if needed.
• Budget / baseline / trend impact: none.
• Escalation needed: none.
• Active feature PR close-out entry: Guardrail.
• Planned validation commands:
  • cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/Guards/NoLegacyTenantPanelRuntimeTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/NoActiveTenantResourceRoutesTest.php tests/Feature/Workspaces/WorkspaceIntendedUrlLegacyRejectionTest.php
  • cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/Filament/PanelNavigationSegregationTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/AdminTenantSurfaceParityTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/AdminSharedSurfacePanelParityTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/TenantOwnedResourceScopeParityTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/InventoryCoverageAdminTenantParityTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/EntraGroupAdminScopeTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/EntraGroupGlobalSearchScopeTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/PolicyResourceAdminSearchParityTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/PolicyVersionAdminSearchParityTest.php
  • cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Unit/Support/GovernanceDecisions/GovernanceDecisionRegisterBuilderTest.php tests/Unit/Support/GovernanceInbox/GovernanceInboxSectionBuilderTest.php tests/Feature/Governance/DecisionRegisterPageTest.php tests/Feature/Governance/DecisionRegisterAuthorizationTest.php tests/Feature/Governance/GovernanceInboxPageTest.php tests/Feature/Governance/GovernanceInboxAuthorizationTest.php tests/Feature/Findings/FindingExceptionDecisionRegisterNavigationTest.php tests/Feature/Findings/FindingExceptionDetailDecisionSummaryTest.php tests/Feature/Findings/FindingExceptionDecisionRegisterBoundariesTest.php
  • cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/Evidence/EvidenceSnapshotResourceTest.php tests/Feature/Evidence/EvidenceSnapshotAuditLogTest.php tests/Feature/EnvironmentReview/EnvironmentReviewAuditLogTest.php tests/Feature/EnvironmentReview/EnvironmentReviewRegisterTest.php tests/Feature/EnvironmentReview/EnvironmentReviewRegisterRbacTest.php tests/Feature/Reviews/CustomerReviewWorkspacePageTest.php tests/Feature/Reviews/CustomerReviewWorkspaceAuthorizationTest.php tests/Feature/Reviews/CustomerReviewWorkspacePackAccessTest.php tests/Feature/Reviews/CustomerReviewWorkspaceLaunchLinksTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/GovernanceArtifacts/GovernanceArtifactDeepLinkContractTest.php
  • cd apps/platform && ./vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact tests/Feature/Monitoring/OperationsDashboardDrillthroughTest.php tests/Feature/Operations/LegacyRunRoutesNotFoundTest.php tests/Feature/ProviderConnections/LegacyRedirectTest.php tests/Feature/RequiredPermissions/RequiredPermissionsLegacyRouteTest.php tests/Feature/Guards/ManagedEnvironmentCanonicalRouteContractTest.php tests/Feature/Filament/PolicyVersionResolvedReferenceLinksTest.php
  • git diff --check

User Scenarios & Testing (mandatory)

User Story 1 - Readiness Matrix (Priority: P1)

As a productization reviewer, I need a repo-based readiness matrix after Specs 301-304 so I can decide whether the next feature spec can start.

Why this priority: The matrix is the core artifact that converts repo evidence into the requested GO / GO WITH CONDITIONS / NO-GO recommendation.

Independent Test: Review feature-readiness-audit.md and confirm every requested audit area appears with one of the required status values, repo evidence, caveat/blocker notes, and recommended actions.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given Specs 301-304 are completed context, When the audit is read, Then each requested readiness area is classified as ready, ready with caveat, blocker, or not applicable.
2. Given a readiness area is blocked, When the audit is read, Then the blocker includes a recommended action.

---

User Story 2 - Next Feature Gate Recommendation (Priority: P1)

As the next-spec owner, I need an explicit recommendation about Decision Register & Approval Workflow v1 so I do not start duplicate or unsafe productization work.

Why this priority: The user explicitly asked whether Decision Register & Approval Workflow v1 may be the next feature spec.

Independent Test: Review the Decision Register evaluation section and confirm it states whether the next feature may start and under which conditions.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given repo evidence for existing Decision Register work is present, When the audit is completed, Then the recommendation distinguishes fresh duplicate feature work from a legitimate follow-up or close-out path.
2. Given roadmap/spec-candidate documents drift from repo truth, When the audit is completed, Then the drift is recorded as a condition rather than silently accepted as current truth.

---

User Story 3 - Validation Evidence (Priority: P2)

As a reviewer, I need the audit to record focused validation commands and outcomes so the recommendation is grounded in current test evidence.

Why this priority: The audit is docs-only, but the readiness claim should still be backed by focused Filament/navigation, governance, findings, evidence, review, OperationRun, and route-retirement checks where practical.

Independent Test: Run or inspect the validation section and confirm git diff --check is included and no tests were added or changed.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given focused validation commands can run locally, When the audit closes, Then their results are documented.
2. Given a validation command cannot run, When the audit closes, Then the reason and residual risk are documented.

Edge Cases

• Existing product docs can describe a candidate as unimplemented while repo code and tests show implementation exists.
• Legacy routes can be absent from route lists while stale copy still references retired tenant-panel semantics.
• A docs-only gate can discover caveats that are not runtime blockers but should become conditions for the next feature spec.
• Focused tests can fail for pre-existing reasons; this audit must document the failure and avoid editing application code or tests.

Requirements (mandatory)

Functional Requirements

• FR-001: The spec MUST produce specs/305-feature-readiness-gate-audit/feature-readiness-audit.md.
• FR-002: The audit artifact MUST include a repo-based matrix covering all 12 requested readiness areas.
• FR-003: The matrix MUST use only the status values ready, ready with caveat, blocker, and not applicable.
• FR-004: Each blocker MUST include a recommended action.
• FR-005: The audit MUST explicitly evaluate whether Decision Register & Approval Workflow v1 may start as the next feature spec.
• FR-006: The audit MUST document a final recommendation of GO, GO WITH CONDITIONS, or NO-GO.
• FR-007: The work MUST NOT modify application runtime code, database migrations, tests, UI surfaces, or route behavior.
• FR-008: The work MUST NOT specify or implement the Decision Register feature.
• FR-009: The work MUST document focused validation commands and outcomes where practical, including git diff --check.
• FR-010: The audit MUST preserve Specs 301-304 as completed context and avoid reopening their implementation scopes.

Key Entities (include if feature involves data)

• Feature Readiness Audit: A documentation-only artifact that records readiness status, repo evidence, caveats/blockers, recommended actions, validation outcomes, and the next-feature recommendation.

Success Criteria (mandatory)

Measurable Outcomes

• SC-001: feature-readiness-audit.md exists and includes all 12 requested readiness areas.
• SC-002: Every matrix row has a status from the required vocabulary, evidence, caveat/blocker note, and recommended action.
• SC-003: The audit states GO, GO WITH CONDITIONS, or NO-GO and explains the Decision Register next-feature decision.
• SC-004: git diff --check passes.
• SC-005: git status --short shows only specs/305-feature-readiness-gate-audit/ changes.

Assumptions

• Specs 301-304 are completed context and should not be edited by this feature.
• Existing code and tests are allowed as evidence, but this feature does not change them.
• If the repo already contains Decision Register implementation, the audit should treat that as repo truth even if roadmap or candidate docs are stale.

Out of Scope

• Application code, migrations, factories, seeders, routes, policies, resources, pages, jobs, events, or services.
• Test creation, test edits, browser spec additions, or fixture changes.
• Decision Register & Approval Workflow v1 specification or implementation.
• Roadmap rewrite or broad product strategy changes.
• Reintroducing legacy tenant panel routes, compatibility aliases, or compatibility tests.