TenantAtlas/specs/408-review-evidence-decision/spec.md

Feature Specification: Customer-safe Review, Evidence & Decision Story

Feature Branch: 408-review-evidence-decision
Created: 2026-05-28
Status: Draft
Input: User description: "Create a public website product-story page that explains how Tenantial turns Microsoft 365 policy state, drift, findings, evidence, accepted risks, and decision context into customer-safe reviews and review-pack preparation without any platform runtime changes."

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

• Problem: Public buyers still cannot answer the most important product question fast enough: what concrete governance artifact Tenantial produces for customers, auditors, IT leaders, and MSP review meetings.
• Today's failure: After the current homepage, trust, taxonomy, and use-case story, Tenantial can still be misread as another backup utility, dashboard, compliance page, or export-heavy admin view instead of a decision-ready governance layer.
• User-visible improvement: A public visitor can understand in one page that Tenantial turns policy truth into reviewable Evidence, Findings, Accepted Risks, Decision Summaries, and review-pack preparation.
• Smallest enterprise-capable version: One dedicated public website product-story page, lightweight discovery from existing IA, page-specific metadata, and strict copy guardrails around customer-safe boundaries and unsupported claims.
• Explicit non-goals: No apps/platform changes, no customer portal, no runtime review workspace, no Review Pack generation, no Evidence storage, no Accepted Risk runtime, no Decision Register runtime, no export/PDF generation, no fake downloads, no fake reports, no fake logos, no fake certifications, and no placeholder links.
• Permanent complexity imported: One bounded public page, optional lightweight homepage/platform/use-case/nav/footer discoverability, additional public metadata, and copy guardrails. No models, persistence, runtime abstractions, or product-state machinery are introduced.
• Why now: Specs 404 through 407 established sales language, trust posture, provider taxonomy, and buyer-specific use cases. The remaining sellability gap is the concrete product-output story for reviews, Evidence, risks, and decisions.
• Why not local: Small copy edits on the homepage or platform page would still leave the review-pack and decision-output story fragmented and too easy to misclassify.
• Approval class: Core Enterprise.
• Red flags triggered: Public overclaim risk, review-pack/export maturity boundary, customer-safe versus internal-detail wording, and IA touch across homepage/platform/use-case/footer discovery surfaces.
• Score: Nutzen: 2 | Dringlichkeit: 2 | Scope: 2 | Komplexitaet: 1 | Produktnaehe: 2 | Wiederverwendung: 2 | Gesamt: 11/12
• Decision: approve.

Red Flag Defense

This spec is intentionally limited to public website positioning. It clarifies what Tenantial helps teams prepare for reviews without claiming a fully shipped customer portal, automatic exports, or guaranteed compliance outcomes. The scope stays inside one bounded product-story page plus existing public-site discovery surfaces.

Scope

This spec defines one dedicated public website product-story page for Review Packs, Evidence, Accepted Risks, and Decision Summaries, plus lightweight discoverability where the current public IA supports it.

• 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; Spec 407 - MSP & Mittelstand Use-Case Pages
• Must not depend on: apps/platform runtime changes
• Primary audience: MSP owners, MSP operators, IT leaders, security teams, auditors, DACH Mittelstand evaluators, and enterprise IT buyers
• Public message: Tenantial turns Microsoft 365 policy state, drift, Findings, and recovery context into customer-safe reviews, Evidence-backed Findings, Accepted Risk visibility, Decision Summaries, and review-pack preparation
• Out of scope: runtime review workspace behavior, Review Pack generation, Evidence storage, RBAC or customer roles, export logic, auditor portal functionality, localization foundations, fake proof artifacts, fake downloadable assets, and any change to root workspace contracts

Goals

• G1: Explain Review Packs as governance deliverables for customer reviews, management reviews, and audit preparation.
• G2: Explain Evidence in buyer-facing language as versioned, reviewable proof context rather than raw logs or screenshots.
• G3: Explain how Findings, Accepted Risks, and decisions become reviewable and auditable governance artifacts.
• G4: Make the customer-safe boundary clear without overclaiming exact runtime enforcement that is not yet verified.
• G5: Keep copy sharp, commercial, and credible for B2B cybersecurity and IT-operations buyers.
• G6: Avoid false claims about portals, automation, remediation, compliance certification, or unsupported providers.

Non-goals

• No apps/platform changes.
• No Customer Review Workspace runtime.
• No Review Pack generation or Evidence storage.
• No Accepted Risk runtime, Decision Register runtime, or RBAC/customer-role implementation.
• No export or PDF generation.
• No auditor portal behavior.
• No fake downloadable Review Packs, sample customer reports, logos, case studies, or certifications.
• No placeholder links, placeholder routes, or href="#".
• No root workspace contract changes.

Spec Scope Fields (mandatory)

• Scope: N/A - public website surface outside authenticated workspace, tenant, or canonical product views
• Primary Routes: preferred public route family /platform/review-packs; fallback real route families such as /review-packs, /platform/evidence-reviews, /evidence-reviews, or German-first variants only when current IA requires them
• Data Ownership: no workspace-owned, tenant-owned, provider-owned, Evidence, review, 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 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, provider, or customer 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, use-case crosslinks, CTA links, and metadata
• Systems touched: current public website shell, page-layout conventions, homepage, platform page, trust page teaser behavior, use-case pages, navigation, footer, and page metadata
• Existing pattern(s) to extend: existing public website layout, section, card/grid, 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 public site already has the shell, visual language, and buyer journeys; this feature needs one focused destination inside that shell, not a new microsite or a second design system
• Allowed deviation and why: a dedicated review-story route is allowed when current IA supports it because the review/evidence/decision narrative needs one coherent destination
• Consistency impact: Microsoft 365-first wording, Evidence-versus-screenshots framing, Accepted Risk and decision language, trust teaser behavior, no-helpdesk boundary, and safe claim language must stay aligned across the new page and any discovery surfaces
• Review focus: verify that the page clearly explains Review Packs, Evidence, Accepted Risks, and Decision Summaries; that links are real; that homepage/platform/use-case/footer exposure stays light; and that no unsupported product, compliance, or provider 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, review-pack public semantics, Evidence and Accepted Risk wording, Decision Summary language, and customer-safe versus internal-detail explanation
• Neutral platform terms preserved or introduced: Review Packs, Evidence, Findings, Accepted Risks, Decision Summary, Management Review, audit preparation, recovery context, customer-safe review, and next action
• Provider-specific semantics retained and why: Microsoft 365 policy state and drift remain explicit because that is the current public market truth; Intune may stay the first strong example because buyers still need a concrete policy-domain anchor
• Why this does not deepen provider coupling accidentally: the feature sells governance artifacts and buyer outcomes, not provider runtime contracts, provider taxonomies, or capability matrices
• Follow-up path: none in this feature; any runtime review-workspace or review-pack enforcement truth belongs in later platform-focused specs

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

N/A - public website product-story surface 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 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 still cannot tell what reviewable output Tenantial creates after policy drift, Findings, and governance work are detected
• Existing structure is insufficient because: homepage, trust, taxonomy, and use-case pages explain positioning and trust, but not the concrete reviewable artifact story buyers need to justify demos and next-step conversations
• Narrowest correct implementation: one dedicated public page plus lightweight discoverability from existing IA
• Ownership cost: public copy, metadata, and links must stay aligned with product truth as review, Evidence, and decision capabilities evolve
• Alternative intentionally rejected: spreading the story across homepage and platform blurbs only, because that would keep the Evidence/review/decision narrative fragmented and easier to misclassify
• Release truth: current public website truth only; no runtime product promise or future 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 website quality is proven by reachable routes, readable desktop/mobile layouts, real discoverability 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/platform/use-case/footer discovery, and claim-boundary compliance
• Reviewer handoff: confirm only website-facing files change, no apps/platform files change, the chosen route follows current IA, all exposed links resolve to real destinations, and copy stays strong without overclaiming customer portal, export, automation, provider, or legal/compliance truth
• Budget / baseline / trend impact: none expected
• Escalation needed: follow-up-spec only if later work adds a runtime review workspace, review-pack export truth, or broader public proof assets
• Active feature PR close-out entry: Smoke Coverage
• Planned validation commands:
  • inspect root and website package manifests 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 review-story page and any homepage/platform/use-case/footer discovery links if local preview is available

User Scenarios & Testing (mandatory)

User Story 1 - Buyers Understand The Review-Pack Outcome (Priority: P1)

A first-time public buyer opens the new page and quickly understands that Tenantial produces reviewable governance artifacts rather than another raw export or dashboard view.

Why this priority: The page exists to answer the core commercial question that remains open after Specs 404 through 407.

Independent Test: Can be fully tested by opening the page and confirming that the hero, problem statement, workflow, and review-pack anatomy clearly explain Review Packs, Evidence, Findings, Accepted Risks, and Decision Summaries in buyer-facing language.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given a public evaluator lands on the page, When they read the hero and supporting copy, Then they understand that Tenantial turns policy state and drift into reviewable decisions rather than another raw export.
2. Given a visitor scans the review-pack anatomy section, When they compare it with manual screenshots or export-heavy processes, Then they understand why a Review Pack is a governance deliverable instead of a screenshot deck.
3. Given a buyer is still classifying the product, When they read the differentiation language, Then they do not interpret Tenantial as a helpdesk, admin-center clone, or blind automation tool.

---

User Story 2 - Buyers Understand Evidence And Decision Context Safely (Priority: P1)

A buyer should understand how Tenantial connects Evidence, Findings, Accepted Risks, and Decision Summaries while keeping customer-safe review content distinct from internal diagnostics.

Why this priority: The page only adds value if it explains both the governance output and the safety boundary around what belongs in customer-facing reviews.

Independent Test: Can be fully tested by opening the Evidence, Decision Summary, and customer-safe boundary sections and checking that each concept is explained in buyer-facing language without runtime overclaim.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given a visitor reads the Evidence section, When they compare it to screenshots, logs, or raw payloads, Then they see Evidence positioned as reviewable proof context rather than raw technical noise.
2. Given a visitor reads the Decision Summary section, When they review Status, Reason, Impact, Evidence, Next Action, and Review Context, Then they understand how a finding becomes a governance decision instead of a forgotten meeting note.
3. Given a visitor reads the boundary section, When they compare customer-safe review content with internal/operator-only detail, Then they see that low-level diagnostics are not the default public review story.

---

User Story 3 - MSP And Enterprise IT Buyers Can Map The Story To Their Context (Priority: P2)

The same page should help MSP buyers and internal IT buyers see why Review Packs, Evidence, and Decision Summaries matter in their different review workflows.

Why this priority: The product story is stronger when the artifact story connects directly to recurring customer reviews for MSPs and to auditability and management reviews for internal IT.

Independent Test: Can be fully tested by reviewing the MSP-value and Enterprise-IT-value sections and confirming that each audience can identify its own repeatable outcome.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given an MSP evaluator reads the MSP section, When they review recurring review, customer communication, service packaging, and follow-up clarity, Then they understand Review Packs as a repeatable governance deliverable.
2. Given an enterprise IT evaluator reads the Enterprise IT section, When they review management review, security review, audit preparation, and recovery context, Then they understand the page as an auditability story rather than a generic compliance page.

---

User Story 4 - Visitors Can Discover The Page Through Real IA Entry Points (Priority: P2)

A public visitor should be able to reach the page from the current website IA without broken links, placeholder links, or fake destinations.

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

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

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given a visitor uses any homepage or platform teaser added by this feature, When they follow the CTA, Then they reach the Review Pack / Evidence / Decision story through a real route.
2. Given a visitor uses any MSP, Mittelstand, navigation, or footer crosslink exposed by this feature, When they open the destination, Then the route resolves without placeholders, dead links, or href="#" behavior.
3. Given a mobile visitor opens the new page, When they scan the hero, core sections, and CTA, Then the page remains readable and actionable.

Edge Cases

• What happens when the current website IA does not support /platform/review-packs cleanly? The implementation must choose a real route family that matches existing conventions and document the decision.
• What happens when suggested CTA targets such as trust, demo, platform, MSP, or Mittelstand are not real destinations? The CTA must be omitted or mapped to an existing real destination.
• What happens when runtime review-pack export availability is not verified? Copy must use soft wording such as "helps prepare", "can", or "if available" instead of hard availability claims.
• What happens when the site language strategy is German-first, English-first, or mixed? The implementation must follow the current site convention rather than introducing a new localization foundation.
• What happens when a line drifts toward legal, compliance, automation, or provider overclaim? The line must be rewritten to preserve governance-layer positioning and verified claim boundaries.

Assumptions

• The current public website can support one real review-story destination 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.
• Review Packs, Evidence, Accepted Risks, and Decision Summaries can be marketed as governance outcomes without claiming a fully shipped customer portal, automatic export pipeline, or legal certification.
• The customer-safe versus internal-detail distinction can be described as a product-story principle even when exact runtime enforcement details remain platform-scope follow-up work.
• The current site language strategy may be German-first or mixed; implementation should follow that convention instead of normalizing the whole site.

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 copy, route exposure, and metadata that translate existing product truth into a buyer-facing review, Evidence, and decision story.

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 product-story page for Review Packs, Evidence, Accepted Risks, and Decision Summaries.
• FR-003: The implementation MUST follow the current website route family; the preferred destination is /platform/review-packs, with real fallback route families only when current IA requires them.
• FR-004: The chosen route and IA decision MUST be documented during implementation.
• FR-005: The new page MUST be reachable from at least one existing public-site entry point such as the homepage, platform page, use-case pages, 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.

Core Story And Page Structure

• FR-007: The page MUST position Tenantial as turning Microsoft 365 policy state, drift, Findings, Evidence, Accepted Risks, and recovery context into reviewable governance artifacts.
• FR-008: The page MUST explain that the outcome is more than a raw export, screenshot collection, or admin-center snapshot.
• FR-009: The page MUST include a hero section, problem section, governance workflow, review-pack anatomy, Evidence section, Decision Summary section, customer-safe boundary section, MSP value section, Enterprise IT value section, differentiation section, optional trust teaser, and final CTA.
• FR-010: The hero MUST make the decision-ready outcome clear in buyer-facing language.
• FR-011: The problem section MUST explain why technical truth alone is insufficient for governance, review preparation, and audit conversations.
• FR-012: The page MUST make clear that Tenantial is not positioned as a helpdesk, admin-center clone, generic compliance marketing page, or blind automation tool.

Governance Workflow And Review-Pack Anatomy

• FR-013: The workflow section MUST describe a sequence from policy state to drift recognition to Evidence to finding evaluation to risk decision to review-pack preparation.
• FR-014: The workflow MUST explain that findings need Status, Reason, Impact, Evidence Basis, and Next Action to become reviewable.
• FR-015: The review-pack anatomy section MUST explain Review Packs as governance deliverables for customer reviews, management reviews, and audit preparation rather than raw technical exports.
• FR-016: The review-pack anatomy MUST include Executive Summary, Evidence Basis, Findings, Accepted Risks, Decision Summary, Review Pack Status, and Download / Export Context.
• FR-017: The Review Pack Status explanation MUST support readiness states such as ready, incomplete, in preparation, or unavailable without using false success signals.
• FR-018: Download or export wording MUST stay soft through language such as "helps prepare", "can", or "if available" unless current product truth verifies harder availability claims.

Evidence, Decisions, And Customer-safe Boundary

• FR-019: The Evidence section MUST explain Evidence as reviewable proof context for policy state, drift, findings, reviews, and recovery questions rather than raw logs or screenshots.
• FR-020: The Evidence section MUST cover policy Evidence, change Evidence, finding Evidence, recovery Evidence, and review Evidence in buyer-facing terms.
• FR-021: The Decision Summary section MUST explain what was found, why it matters, what Evidence supports it, what was accepted, what remains open, who acts next, and when review is needed if applicable.
• FR-022: The Decision Summary section MUST surface Status, Reason, Impact, Evidence, Next Action, and Review Context as buyer-facing concepts.
• FR-023: The customer-safe boundary section MUST explain the distinction between customer-safe review content and internal or operator-only diagnostics.
• FR-024: Customer-safe review content MUST include executive summary, review status, Findings summary, Evidence Basis, Accepted Risks, Decision Summary, next actions, and management-ready wording.
• FR-025: Internal or operator-only detail MUST exclude raw provider payloads, internal job IDs, debug traces, stack traces, internal fingerprints, low-level operation URLs, secret context, internal reason-family names, and unredacted diagnostics by default.
• FR-026: The page MUST describe the customer-safe boundary as a product-story principle and MUST NOT claim exact enforcement behavior unless current product truth verifies it.

Audience Value, Differentiation, And CTA

• FR-027: The MSP value section MUST position Review Packs as a repeatable governance deliverable for recurring customer reviews.
• FR-028: The MSP value section MUST cover recurring reviews, customer communication, service packaging, and follow-up clarity.
• FR-029: The Enterprise IT value section MUST position the story around management review, security review, audit preparation, and recovery context without a screenshot-driven process.
• FR-030: The differentiation section MUST contrast raw exports with Tenantial's review story in terms of context, Evidence, Findings, Accepted Risks, and next actions.
• FR-031: The trust teaser MAY link to the existing trust destination only when that route exists as a real destination and MUST avoid unverified legal, hosting, certification, or compliance claims.
• FR-032: The final CTA MUST use only real destinations and MUST keep the sales promise bounded to review preparation, Evidence, decisions, follow-up, and governance clarity.

Discovery, Metadata, Language, And Claim Guardrails

• FR-033: The homepage MAY expose a compact teaser for Evidence and Review Packs when the current homepage structure supports it without a heavy IA rewrite.
• FR-034: The platform page MAY expose a compact teaser connecting backups, drift, and findings to reviewable Evidence and decisions when current structure supports it.
• FR-035: MSP and Mittelstand / Enterprise IT use-case pages MAY crosslink to this page only when those routes exist as real destinations.
• FR-036: Navigation or footer MAY expose the page only where current IA supports it; the feature MUST NOT introduce a placeholder dropdown or heavy nav refactor solely for this page.
• FR-037: Page metadata MUST describe Review Packs, Evidence, Findings, Accepted Risks, and Decision Summaries in Microsoft 365 governance language for MSPs and enterprise IT buyers.
• FR-038: Visible copy and metadata MUST use strong but safe governance language such as Review Packs, auditfaehige Evidence, pruefbare Unterlagen, Findings, Accepted Risks, Decision Summary, Evidence Basis, Management Review, Audit-Vorbereitung, Recovery Context, and Status/Reason/Impact/Next Action.
• FR-039: Visible copy and metadata MUST NOT use internal phrases such as customer-safe consumption productization, route-owned workspace-wide hub, artifact taxonomy, source family, capability registry, repo-real foundation, or operator surface convergence.
• FR-040: Visible copy and metadata MUST NOT claim a completed customer portal, automatic Review Pack generation, automatic exports, immutable Evidence, lueckenlose Evidence, gerichtsfeste Nachweise, complete audit trail, guaranteed audit success, makes you compliant, DSGVO-konform, ISO-zertifiziert, real-time drift, automatic remediation, automatic restore, or Google/AWS support unless separately verified as current product truth.
• FR-041: Review Packs, Evidence, Accepted Risks, decisions, and recovery context MAY be described as governance outcomes, but the feature MUST NOT introduce fake sample reports, fake downloadable PDFs, fake customer reports, fake logos, fake case studies, or fake certifications.

Scope Safety

• FR-042: 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-043: The implementation MUST follow the current site language strategy and MUST NOT introduce a new localization foundation.
• FR-044: The implementation MUST NOT add runtime Review Pack generation, Evidence storage, Decision Register behavior, customer portal behavior, RBAC changes, or export/PDF runtime behavior.
• FR-045: The implementation MUST record the exact validation commands and results used to verify the public website change.

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)

• Review Story Page: A public buyer-facing page that explains how Tenantial turns policy truth into reviewable Evidence, Findings, Accepted Risks, decisions, and review-pack preparation.
• Review Pack: A governance deliverable for customer reviews, management reviews, or audit preparation that summarizes Findings, Evidence, decisions, and next actions in buyer-facing form.
• Evidence Basis: The buyer-facing explanation of which policy, change, finding, recovery, or review context supports a governance conclusion.
• Decision Summary: The structured explanation of what was found, why it matters, what was accepted, what remains open, and what action should happen next.

Success Criteria (mandatory)

Measurable Outcomes

• SC-001: In internal copy review, a first-time public evaluator can identify within 60 seconds that Tenantial turns Microsoft 365 policy state and drift into Review Packs, Evidence, and decision-ready governance outputs instead of another raw export or dashboard.
• SC-002: In internal copy review, a first-time MSP evaluator can identify within 60 seconds that the page supports repeatable customer governance reviews, Accepted Risk visibility, and follow-up preparation.
• SC-003: In internal copy review, a first-time enterprise IT evaluator can identify within 60 seconds that the page supports management review, audit preparation, and recovery context without a screenshot-driven process.
• SC-004: QA finds zero placeholder links or broken exposed routes across the new page and any homepage, platform-page, use-case, navigation, or footer discovery points changed by this feature.
• SC-005: Static copy review finds zero occurrences of banned internal phrases, false compliance/provider claims, fake portal/export promises, or fake proof artifacts on new or updated public surfaces created by this feature.
• SC-006: Desktop and mobile smoke review confirms that the page remains readable, keeps its primary CTA visible, clearly separates customer-safe review content from internal diagnostics, and shows no layout breakage.