TenantAtlas/specs/407-msp-mittelstand-use-case-pages/spec.md

Feature Specification: MSP & Mittelstand Use-Case Pages

Feature Branch: 407-msp-mittelstand-use-case-pages
Created: 2026-05-26
Status: Draft
Input: User description: "Create dedicated public website use-case pages for MSPs and Mittelstand / Enterprise IT that position Tenantial as a Microsoft 365 governance layer for repeatable governance reviews, evidence, policy drift visibility, audit preparation, and controlled recovery context without turning the site into a generic Intune, helpdesk, or compliance-automation story."

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

• Problem: MSP buyers and internal IT buyers cannot quickly tell whether Tenantial fits their operating model once they move beyond the homepage, trust surface, and provider taxonomy.
• Today's failure: Public copy still risks sounding abstract, too architecture-heavy, or too Intune-adjacent, so buyers cannot answer fast whether Tenantial helps recurring customer governance reviews or internal control and audit preparation.
• User-visible improvement: A public visitor can self-qualify in one visit through two buyer-specific pages that translate Tenantial into repeatable governance outcomes for MSPs and for Mittelstand / Enterprise IT.
• Smallest enterprise-capable version: Two dedicated public use-case pages, lightweight homepage exposure, real discovery links through existing IA, page-specific metadata, and explicit claim boundaries.
• Explicit non-goals: No apps/platform changes, no MSP dashboard, no customer portal, no runtime Review Pack generation, no PSA integration, no billing, no fake case studies, no fake logos, no fake ROI numbers, no fake certifications, no fake downloadable PDFs, and no placeholder routes or links.
• Permanent complexity imported: Two bounded public website routes or equivalent IA destinations, one compact homepage teaser, optional nav/footer exposure, buyer-specific metadata, and public copy guardrails. No models, persistence, services, runtime abstractions, or product-state machinery are introduced.
• Why now: Spec 404 corrected sales messaging, Spec 405 corrected trust posture, and Spec 406 corrected provider/domain scope. The next sales blocker is buyer self-identification for MSPs versus internal IT teams.
• Why not local: A few extra homepage sentences cannot carry both the MSP service-delivery story and the internal-control story without flattening one of them into generic positioning.
• Approval class: Core Enterprise.
• Red flags triggered: Public overclaim risk, buyer-specific sales language, IA touch across homepage/nav/footer, and Microsoft 365 versus Intune category boundary wording.
• Score: Nutzen: 2 | Dringlichkeit: 2 | Scope: 2 | Komplexitaet: 1 | Produktnaehe: 2 | Wiederverwendung: 2 | Gesamt: 11/12
• Decision: approve.

Red Flag Defense

This spec intentionally adds two audience-specific pages because the current public-site sequence still leaves the commercial fit decision implicit. The scope stays bounded to website IA, copy, and metadata. It must not become a runtime MSP feature, a pricing spec, a provider-support promise, or a fake proof surface.

Scope

This spec defines two dedicated public website use-case pages for Tenantial's two primary buyer groups.

• Relevant application for later implementation: public website only
• Depends on: Spec 404 - Public Website Sales Copy & Positioning Rewrite; Spec 405 - DACH Trust, Datenschutz & Security Website Surface; Spec 406 - Provider & Policy Domain Public Taxonomy
• Must not depend on: apps/platform runtime changes
• Primary audience: MSP owners, MSP operators, IT leaders, enterprise IT teams, security teams, and DACH Mittelstand evaluators
• Public message: Microsoft 365 governance first, Intune as the first strong policy domain rather than the whole category, repeatable governance outcomes, audit-ready evidence, and clear boundaries against helpdesk, PSA, admin-center-clone, or blind automation positioning
• Out of scope: provider runtime support, customer portals, Review Pack generation, PSA integrations, billing or plans, localization foundations, fake customer proof, fake certifications, root workspace contract changes, and non-website implementation work

Goals

• G1: Create a dedicated MSP page that sells Tenantial as a repeatable governance service layer for Microsoft 365 customer environments.
• G2: Create a dedicated Mittelstand / Enterprise IT page that sells Tenantial as a control, evidence, and auditability layer for internal Microsoft 365 operations.
• G3: Keep visible copy sharp, commercial, and grounded in B2B cybersecurity / IT-operations language.
• G4: Reuse the public positioning already established in Specs 404 through 406.
• G5: Hold a clear claim boundary around audits, evidence, backups, recovery, and provider support.

Non-goals

• No apps/platform runtime work.
• No MSP portfolio dashboard or customer portal.
• No Review Pack generation or downloadable PDF artifact system.
• No PSA, ticketing, or billing integration.
• No Google, AWS, Okta, or generic multi-cloud support promise.
• No fake logos, fake case studies, fake ROI claims, or fake legal/compliance statements.
• No placeholder links, placeholder dropdowns, or href="#".

Spec Scope Fields (mandatory)

• Scope: N/A - public website surface outside authenticated workspace, tenant, or canonical-view product flows
• Primary Routes: preferred public routes /use-cases/msp and /use-cases/mittelstand; fallback to real route families such as /solutions/... or /einsatzbereiche/... only if current website IA requires them
• Data Ownership: no workspace-owned, tenant-owned, provider-owned, customer, backup, evidence, audit, or runtime product data is created, changed, or persisted by this feature
• RBAC: public read-only content only; no membership, role, capability, authorization, or authenticated product behavior changes

For canonical-view specs, the spec MUST define:

• Default filter behavior when tenant-context is active: N/A - no tenant-context or canonical product view is introduced
• Explicit entitlement checks preventing cross-tenant leakage: N/A - no authenticated tenant, workspace, or provider data is involved

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): public navigation, footer links, homepage teaser, platform-page teaser, CTA links, metadata, and public claim language
• Systems touched: current public website shell, page-layout conventions, homepage, platform page, navigation, footer, and page metadata
• Existing pattern(s) to extend: existing public website layout, section, card/grid, badge, CTA, and metadata conventions
• Shared contract / presenter / builder / renderer to reuse: current website content structures and reusable presentation components
• Why the existing shared path is sufficient or insufficient: the site already has the public shell and sales surfaces; this feature needs buyer-specific destinations inside that shell, not a second microsite or a new design system
• Allowed deviation and why: a dedicated use-case route family is allowed when current IA supports it because the buyer stories need one focused destination each
• Consistency impact: Microsoft 365-first wording, Intune-as-first-strong-domain wording, evidence and review language, no-helpdesk boundary, trust teaser behavior, and safe metadata must stay aligned across homepage, platform page, use-case pages, nav, footer, and SEO copy
• Review focus: verify that links are real, the two pages are not duplicates, the MSP page clearly speaks to repeatable customer governance, the Enterprise IT page clearly speaks to internal control and auditability, and no unsupported claims appear

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?: yes
• Boundary classification: mixed public vocabulary only
• Seams affected: Microsoft 365-first positioning, Intune-as-first-strong-domain wording, provider-permission transparency, provider-extensible secondary messaging, and boundary language for helpdesk, PSA, admin center, and unsupported providers
• Neutral platform terms preserved or introduced: Microsoft 365 governance, policy drift, evidence, review packs, accepted risks, controlled recovery context, audit trail, provider permissions, recurring governance reviews, and customer-safe review consumption
• Provider-specific semantics retained and why: Microsoft 365 and Intune remain explicit because they are the first public market and the first strong policy domain; that specificity is necessary to avoid generic governance wording
• Why this does not deepen provider coupling accidentally: the feature sells buyer outcomes and boundaries, not a provider capability matrix or runtime provider framework
• Follow-up path: none for this feature; later audience or provider expansion belongs in follow-up public website specs only if product truth changes

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

N/A - public website use-case surfaces only; no authenticated operator-facing product surface is changed.

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

N/A - no operator-facing product surface change.

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

N/A - public buyer-facing website copy only; no operator diagnostics, support mode, or raw evidence surface is added here.

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

N/A - no operator-facing product surface change.

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

N/A - no operator-facing product surface change.

Proportionality Review (mandatory when structural complexity is introduced)

• New source of truth?: no
• New persisted entity/table/artifact?: no
• New abstraction?: no
• New enum/state/reason family?: no
• New cross-domain UI framework/taxonomy?: no - the feature reuses the current public website shell and existing page patterns
• Current operator problem: public buyers cannot quickly map Tenantial to either repeatable MSP governance delivery or internal Microsoft 365 control and audit preparation
• Existing structure is insufficient because: homepage, trust, and provider taxonomy surfaces explain product truth but do not translate that truth into the two primary buying contexts
• Narrowest correct implementation: two dedicated public use-case pages with lightweight discovery from existing IA
• Ownership cost: future public copy, metadata, and links must keep buyer language and claim boundaries aligned with actual product truth
• Alternative intentionally rejected: expanding the homepage alone, because that would collapse two different commercial stories into one generic message
• Release truth: current public website truth only; no runtime product promise or future platform abstraction is introduced

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: Browser
• Validation lane(s): browser, confidence
• Why this classification and these lanes are sufficient: public use-case quality is proven by reachable routes, readable desktop/mobile layouts, real links, static claim scans, and any existing website build/check/test commands that validate the public site
• New or expanded test families: none beyond website-only static checks and any existing public-site smoke coverage
• Fixture / helper cost impact: none
• Heavy-family visibility / justification: none
• Special surface test profile: N/A - public website surface
• Standard-native relief or required special coverage: ordinary public-site coverage only; verify route reachability, readable layout, real CTA links, homepage discovery, and claim-boundary compliance
• Reviewer handoff: confirm only website-facing files change, no apps/platform files change, all exposed links resolve to real destinations, and copy keeps MSP and Enterprise IT narratives distinct without unsafe promises
• Budget / baseline / trend impact: none expected
• Escalation needed: follow-up-spec only if later work needs public localization foundations, additional audience pages, or new proof assets
• Active feature PR close-out entry: Smoke Coverage
• Planned validation commands:
  • inspect root and website package metadata before running scripts
  • run only existing website check, build, or test commands if present
  • run static scans for placeholder links, banned internal phrases, and unsupported claims in website source and committed public assets
  • run desktop and mobile browser smoke for the MSP page, the Mittelstand page, homepage entry points, and any nav/footer links if local preview is available

User Scenarios & Testing (mandatory)

User Story 1 - MSP Buyer Self-Qualifies Fast (Priority: P1)

An MSP owner or operator opens the MSP use-case page and can immediately tell that Tenantial helps scale repeatable Microsoft 365 governance reviews across customer environments.

Why this priority: The MSP story is one of the two primary commercial entry points and is currently too implicit on the public site.

Independent Test: Can be fully tested by opening the MSP page and confirming that the hero, pain points, outcomes, workflow, and boundary section all describe recurring customer governance rather than generic IT administration.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given a public MSP evaluator, When they read the MSP page hero and outcome sections, Then they understand that Tenantial helps with repeatable governance reviews, evidence, and service packaging across customer environments.
2. Given a visitor scanning the MSP page quickly, When they read the pain cards and workflow steps, Then they see manual review effort, hidden policy drift, weak customer evidence, and follow-up tracking translated into a repeatable governance process.
3. Given a visitor trying to classify the product, When they read the MSP boundary section, Then they see that Tenantial is not positioned as a PSA, ticketing suite, helpdesk, or blind remediation engine.

---

User Story 2 - Internal IT Buyer Understands Control Value (Priority: P1)

An IT leader, security team member, or enterprise IT evaluator opens the Mittelstand / Enterprise IT page and can immediately tell that Tenantial helps make Microsoft 365 policy changes, drift, evidence, and recovery context more controllable and reviewable.

Why this priority: The internal IT story is the second primary buying context and must not be flattened into MSP language or generic compliance copy.

Independent Test: Can be fully tested by opening the Enterprise IT page and confirming that the hero, pain points, stakeholder view, outcomes, workflow, and differentiation section all speak to internal control and auditability.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given an internal IT evaluator, When they read the hero and outcome sections, Then they understand that Tenantial helps with policy drift visibility, change traceability, evidence, review preparation, and controlled recovery context.
2. Given a visitor scanning the stakeholder cards, When they review IT Operations, Security, IT leadership, and Audit / Datenschutz roles, Then they can see how the same governance surface supports different internal stakeholders.
3. Given a visitor comparing tools, When they read the differentiation section, Then they see that Tenantial is not framed as another admin center, helpdesk, PSA, SIEM, or autonomous compliance automation product.

---

User Story 3 - Public Visitors Can Reach Both Buyer Paths (Priority: P2)

A public visitor should be able to discover both use-case pages through the existing website IA without broken links or placeholder navigation.

Why this priority: Buyer-specific messaging only helps if it is discoverable from the surfaces where visitors first form expectations.

Independent Test: Can be fully tested by following homepage, platform-page, navigation, or footer links to both use-case pages on desktop and mobile.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given a visitor on the homepage, When they use the use-case teaser entry points, Then both buyer pages resolve through real links.
2. Given a visitor using any nav or footer links exposed by this feature, When they open the MSP or Mittelstand destination, Then each link resolves without placeholders or dead routes.
3. Given a mobile visitor, When they navigate to either use-case page, Then the headline, core sections, and primary CTA remain readable and actionable.

---

User Story 4 - Buyers See Safe Claim Boundaries (Priority: P2)

A public evaluator should be able to understand what Tenantial helps with today without reading claims about unsupported automation, compliance guarantees, or non-existent provider support.

Why this priority: The feature improves sellability only if it avoids creating new trust risk.

Independent Test: Can be fully tested by reviewing both use-case pages, their metadata, and any homepage/nav/footer exposure for banned phrases and unsupported claims.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given a visitor reading either page, When they review the evidence, audit, backup, and recovery language, Then they do not see claims about real-time detection, automatic remediation, one-click restore, immutable backups, or guaranteed compliance.
2. Given a visitor reading trust teasers or provider references, When they inspect the copy, Then they do not see Google, AWS, or other non-verified providers presented as live support.
3. Given a visitor reading page headlines and supporting copy, When they look for product-category cues, Then they see Microsoft 365 first and Intune only as the first strong policy domain rather than the full product category.

Edge Cases

• What happens when the current website IA does not support /use-cases/... cleanly? The implementation must choose a real route family that matches current conventions and document the decision.
• What happens when a suggested CTA target such as trust, demo, platform, or review-pack detail does not exist as a real destination? The CTA must be omitted or mapped to an existing real destination.
• What happens when the active site language is German-first, English-first, or mixed? The pages must follow the current site convention instead of introducing a new localization foundation.
• What happens when a copy line risks sounding like Tenantial is a helpdesk, admin-center clone, compliance certification, or autonomous remediation tool? The line must be rewritten to preserve governance-layer positioning.
• What happens when review packs, accepted risks, or evidence are referenced? They must be framed as governance deliverables and review outcomes, not as fake downloadable artifacts or automated guarantees.

Assumptions

• The current public website can support two real buyer-specific destinations without changing root workspace contracts.
• At least one real destination exists for primary CTA flows such as platform, demo/contact, or trust; secondary CTA variants may be omitted when no real destination exists.
• The current language strategy may be German-first or mixed; implementation should follow existing conventions rather than normalizing the whole site.
• Review packs, accepted risks, evidence, and recovery context can be marketed as governance outcomes without claiming runtime automation, downloadable PDFs, or legal certification.
• Intune remains the first strong public policy domain, but the feature must not collapse Tenantial into an Intune-only category story.

Requirements (mandatory)

This feature introduces no Microsoft Graph calls, no write/change product behavior, no persistence, no OperationRun flow, no RBAC mutation, and no provider runtime capability. Its only additions are bounded public website pages, discovery links, and metadata that translate existing product truth into buyer-specific positioning.

Functional Requirements

Scope And Route

• FR-001: The implementation MUST remain public-website-only and MUST NOT require apps/platform runtime changes.
• FR-002: The public website MUST provide one dedicated MSP use-case page.
• FR-003: The public website MUST provide one dedicated Mittelstand / Enterprise IT use-case page.
• FR-004: The implementation MUST follow the current website route family; preferred routes are /use-cases/msp and /use-cases/mittelstand, with real fallback route families such as /solutions/... or /einsatzbereiche/... only when current IA requires them.
• FR-005: Both use-case pages MUST be reachable from at least one existing public-site entry point such as the homepage, platform page, navigation, or footer.
• FR-006: Every CTA, teaser, nav link, footer link, and in-page link added by this feature MUST resolve to a real destination; placeholder links and href="#" are forbidden.

MSP Page Positioning

• FR-007: The MSP page MUST position Tenantial as a repeatable Microsoft 365 governance layer for service providers managing customer environments.
• FR-008: The MSP page MUST explain outcomes in terms of fewer manual tenant checks, less screenshot- or Excel-based governance work, stronger customer evidence, repeatable review preparation, and clearer follow-up on findings and accepted risks.
• FR-009: The MSP page MUST include a hero section, pain section, outcomes section, repeatable workflow section, capability section, trust teaser, boundary section, and final CTA.
• FR-010: The MSP pain section MUST cover manual reviews, hidden policy drift, weak customer-facing evidence, and the lack of a repeatable governance package.
• FR-011: The MSP outcome section MUST cover customer review packs, multi-customer control, audit-ready evidence, recurring governance-service packaging, and clear follow-up handling.
• FR-012: The MSP workflow section MUST describe a repeatable sequence that captures policy state, identifies drift, bundles evidence, classifies risks, prepares review context, and keeps follow-up visible.
• FR-013: The MSP capability section MUST cover governance reviews, policy backup and versioning, drift visibility, accepted-risk visibility, audit evidence, and a PSA handoff boundary.
• FR-014: The MSP boundary section MUST state that Tenantial is not a PSA, ticketing system, generic helpdesk, all-in-one MSP suite, blind remediation engine, or Intune-only backup utility.
• FR-015: The MSP trust teaser MAY link to the existing trust route only when that route exists as a real destination and MUST avoid unverified legal, hosting, or certification claims.
• FR-016: The MSP final CTA MUST use only real destinations and MUST keep the sales promise bounded to governance visibility, evidence, backups, review preparation, and controlled follow-up.

Mittelstand / Enterprise IT Positioning

• FR-017: The Mittelstand / Enterprise IT page MUST position Tenantial as a control, evidence, and auditability layer for internal Microsoft 365 operations.
• FR-018: The page MUST explain outcomes in terms of policy drift visibility, change traceability, audit-ready evidence, review preparation, recovery context, and clearer decision records.
• FR-019: The page MUST include a hero section, pain section, outcomes section, stakeholder section, workflow section, differentiation section, trust teaser, and final CTA.
• FR-020: The pain section MUST cover undocumented changes, audit pressure, recovery uncertainty, and screenshot- or export-based governance processes.
• FR-021: The outcomes section MUST cover drift visibility, change traceability, evidence preparation, safer recovery assessment, and documented decisions.
• FR-022: The stakeholder section MUST speak separately to IT Operations, Security teams, IT leadership, and Audit / Datenschutz stakeholders.
• FR-023: The workflow section MUST describe a sequence that secures state, identifies drift, prepares evidence, evaluates risk, prepares review context, and records next decisions.
• FR-024: The differentiation section MUST explain that Tenantial is the governance layer above Microsoft admin surfaces rather than another admin center.
• FR-025: The Mittelstand trust teaser MAY link to the existing trust route only when that route exists as a real destination and MUST avoid unverified legal, hosting, or certification claims.
• FR-026: The Mittelstand final CTA MUST use only real destinations and MUST keep the sales promise bounded to control, evidence, reviews, and controlled recovery preparation.

Homepage, Navigation, Footer, And Discovery

• FR-027: The homepage MUST expose a compact buyer teaser for both MSPs and Mittelstand / Enterprise IT when the current homepage structure can support it without a heavy IA rewrite.
• FR-028: The homepage teaser MUST summarize each buyer outcome distinctly and MUST link to the corresponding real destination.
• FR-029: Navigation or footer links MAY expose the use-case pages only where current IA supports them; the feature MUST NOT introduce a placeholder dropdown or a heavy nav system solely for these two pages.
• FR-030: Any platform-page teaser added by this feature MUST reinforce the same buyer split and MUST NOT duplicate whole page copy verbatim.

Metadata, Language, And Claim Guardrails

• FR-031: The MSP page MUST have metadata that describes Microsoft 365 governance for MSPs, including repeatable reviews, evidence, backups, accepted risks, and review preparation.
• FR-032: The Mittelstand / Enterprise IT page MUST have metadata that describes Microsoft 365 governance for internal IT teams, including drift visibility, changes, evidence, backups, reviews, and recovery context.
• FR-033: Visible copy and metadata MUST use strong but safe governance language such as policy drift, evidence, review packs, accepted risks, audit trail, controlled recovery preparation, and repeatable governance reviews.
• FR-034: Visible copy and metadata MUST NOT use weak internal phrases such as product-category debates, architecture-taxonomy jargon, source-of-truth-first phrasing, provider-neutral-core wording, or other internal implementation language.
• FR-035: Visible copy and metadata MUST NOT claim real-time drift detection, automatic remediation, automatic restore, immutable backups, complete compliance, legal certification, court-proof evidence, or live Google/AWS support unless separately verified as current product truth.
• FR-036: Intune MAY appear as the first strong policy domain or first strong example, but the pages MUST present Tenantial as Microsoft 365 governance first and MUST NOT frame Intune as the entire product category.
• FR-037: Review packs, accepted risks, evidence, provider permissions, and recovery context MAY be described as governance outcomes, but the feature MUST NOT introduce fake downloadable artifacts, fake proof packs, or fake automated deliverables.

Scope Safety

• FR-038: The implementation MUST NOT introduce fake logos, fake case studies, fake ROI numbers, fake certifications, fake legal claims, fake downloadable PDFs, or placeholder routes.
• FR-039: The implementation MUST preserve root workspace contracts, including existing root script names, the website package name, the WEBSITE_PORT convention, and the apps/* workspace convention.
• FR-040: The implementation MUST document the chosen route family and the exact validation commands run when the feature is implemented.

UI Action Matrix (mandatory when Filament is changed)

N/A - no Filament Resource, RelationManager, or Page is changed by this feature.

Key Entities (include if feature involves data)

• MSP Use-Case Page: A public buyer-facing page that explains repeatable Microsoft 365 governance delivery for service providers across customer environments.
• Mittelstand / Enterprise IT Use-Case Page: A public buyer-facing page that explains internal control, evidence, auditability, and recovery-context value for Microsoft 365 teams.
• Use-Case Discovery Link: A homepage, platform-page, navigation, or footer entry that routes a visitor to one of the buyer-specific pages through a real destination and buyer-specific summary.

Success Criteria (mandatory)

Measurable Outcomes

• SC-001: In internal copy review, a first-time MSP evaluator can identify within 60 seconds that Tenantial helps scale repeatable governance reviews, evidence, and follow-up across customer Microsoft 365 environments.
• SC-002: In internal copy review, a first-time internal IT evaluator can identify within 60 seconds that Tenantial helps with policy drift visibility, change traceability, evidence, and controlled recovery preparation for Microsoft 365.
• SC-003: QA finds zero placeholder links or broken exposed routes across the new use-case pages and any homepage, platform-page, navigation, or footer entry points changed by this feature.
• SC-004: Static copy review finds zero occurrences of banned internal phrases or unsupported claims on new or updated public surfaces created by this feature.
• SC-005: Desktop and mobile smoke review confirms that both buyer pages remain readable, keep their primary CTA visible, and preserve distinct buyer messaging without layout breakage.