ahmido/TenantAtlas
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects 1 Releases Wiki Activity
71e3745aee
TenantAtlas/specs/438-exchange-internal-render-model-slice-1/checklists/requirements.md
ahmido 71e3745aee Spec 438: Exchange internal render model slice 1 (#505) 
Implements Feature Spec 438 and associated plan/tasks/update artifacts for Exchange internal render model slice 1.

Target branch: platform-dev

Follow-up integration path after merge: platform-dev -> dev.

Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de>
Reviewed-on: #505
2026-07-10 13:30:14 +00:00

128 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

# Requirements Quality Checklist: Spec 438 - Exchange Internal Render Model Slice 1
**Purpose**: Validate that Spec 438's requirements are complete, unambiguous, internally consistent, measurable, repo-grounded, and implementation-ready. This checklist tests the requirements writing, not the implementation.
**Created**: 2026-07-10
**Feature**: [spec.md](../spec.md)
## Candidate And Prerequisite Quality
- [x] CHK001 Is the candidate source identified as directly user-provided rather than an invented queue item? [Traceability, Spec `Preparation Selection Summary`]
- [x] CHK002 Is the Spec 437 prerequisite stated with merged PASS/merge-ready evidence and current HEAD? [Completeness, Spec `Preparation Selection Summary`]
- [x] CHK003 Is the completed-spec guardrail explicit for Spec 422 and Specs 429-437? [Consistency, Spec `Preparation Selection Summary`]
- [x] CHK004 Is the stale `dev` versus current `platform-dev` base decision disclosed? [Assumption, Spec `Preparation Selection Summary`]
- [x] CHK005 Does the Candidate Check acknowledge zero current consumers and zero visible product outcome? [Clarity, Spec `Spec Candidate Check`]
- [ ] CHK006 Is a current-release operator workflow or real consumer demonstrated for this standalone layer? [BLOCKER: no; PROP-001, Spec `Spec Candidate Check`]
- [ ] CHK007 Can the topic be described as an independent current operator problem rather than a sub-operator implementation slice? [BLOCKER: no; Spec Approval Rubric Rule C, Spec `Spec Candidate Check`]
- [x] CHK008 Does the candidate gate use the exact `Defer` classification, an evidence-based 5/12 score, and FAIL instead of allowing technical boundedness to override the constitution/rubric blocker? [Consistency, Spec `Spec Candidate Check`]
## Scope And Proportionality Quality
- [x] CHK009 Is exactly one local builder proposed and every broader abstraction explicitly forbidden? [Scope, Spec `Proportionality Review`]
- [x] CHK010 Are the three supported resource types named exhaustively? [Completeness, Spec `Functional Requirements`]
- [x] CHK011 Does the spec keep the proposal provider-owned rather than platform-core? [Consistency, Spec `Provider Boundary / Platform Core Check`]
- [x] CHK012 Are persistence, enums/statuses, taxonomies, interfaces, registries, DTOs, consumers, and UI frameworks answered explicitly? [Completeness, Spec `Proportionality Review`]
- [x] CHK013 Is the correct narrower path—folding the mapping into the first real consumer spec—documented? [Proportionality, Spec `Spec Candidate Check`]
- [x] CHK014 Are hard stops objectively tied to scope-changing conditions? [Measurability, Spec `Final Candidate Gate`]
## Input Contract Quality
- [x] CHK015 Does the spec require the complete Spec 437 result envelope rather than the nested payload? [Clarity, Spec `Input Contract`]
- [x] CHK016 Are all required top-level envelope fields, types, and success values enumerated? [Completeness, Spec `Input Contract`]
- [x] CHK017 Are workload, nested type, shape version, compare-input marker, identity, redaction, provenance, and target sections enumerated at their exact paths? [Traceability, Spec `Input Contract`]
- [x] CHK018 Is the exact comparable shape version fixed? [Clarity, Spec `Input Contract`]
- [x] CHK019 Are Spec 437 comparable-hash recomputation and constant-time consistency comparison defined while explicitly stating that the unkeyed hash does not authenticate origin or provenance and requires trusted in-process composition? [Integrity, Spec `Input Contract`]
- [x] CHK020 Is identity anchor validation defined without permitting anchor output? [Security, Spec `Input Contract`]
- [x] CHK021 Are canonical remote-domain identity denylist rules and `domain_name_is_identity=false` explicit? [Security, Spec `Input Contract`]
- [x] CHK022 Must inbound routing duplicates agree with canonical material values? [Consistency, Spec `Input Contract`]
- [x] CHK023 Is invalid input exactly `null`, are recognized allowlisted fields distinguished from ignored unknown fields, and must every `protected_values`/`sensitive_values` entry pass exact marker-key-set validation without a new blocker/status taxonomy? [Clarity, Spec `Input Contract`]
- [x] CHK024 Are Evidence, Resource, ResourceType, OperationRun, raw/normalized input, streams, provider response, and old-renderer fallbacks prohibited? [Coverage, Spec `Forbidden Input And Fallbacks`]
## Output Contract Quality
- [x] CHK025 Is the exact top-level output order and model version fixed? [Measurability, Spec `Output Contract`]
- [x] CHK026 Are fixed boundary booleans distinguished from new persisted/status truth? [Clarity, Spec `Output Contract`]
- [x] CHK027 Is identity presentation limited to the exact generic label and boolean? [Security, Spec `Output Contract`]
- [x] CHK028 Are every target section's field names, labels, types, nullability, and order defined? [Completeness, Spec target mappings]
- [x] CHK029 Does the spec forbid hidden metadata bags, generic pass-through, recursive output traversal, and stringification? [Completeness, Spec `Functional Requirements`]
- [x] CHK030 Are identity anchors, hashes, source, and provenance validation-only and excluded from output? [Security, Spec `Common Mapping Semantics`]
## Count, Marker, And Determinism Quality
- [x] CHK031 Are configured-field, redacted-field, redacted-value, and presence semantics defined separately? [Clarity, Spec `Common Mapping Semantics`]
- [x] CHK032 Are unknown-key counting and duplicate protected/sensitive-section counting prohibited? [Edge Case, Spec `Common Mapping Semantics`]
- [x] CHK033 Is priority canonicalization defined with one output type? [Clarity, Spec `Common Mapping Semantics`]
- [x] CHK034 Are safe-enum input type, canonicalization function, accepted upstream spellings, exact token-to-output map, and rejection behavior specified? [Measurability, Spec `Common Mapping Semantics`]
- [x] CHK035 Is marker consistency fully defined across the exact key set, additional-key rejection, order independence, redacted, present, count, and state? [Completeness, Spec `Common Mapping Semantics`]
- [x] CHK036 Are key-order, unknown-key, volatile-metadata, safe-change, and protected-change expectations measurable while preserving valid envelope hashes? [Coverage, Spec `Success Criteria`]
## Target Mapping Quality
- [x] CHK037 Are `transportRule` source sections, allowlists, safe scalars, labels, field order, and forbidden values exact? [Completeness, Spec `transportRule Mapping`]
- [x] CHK038 Does the transport contract distinguish configured fields from protected value counts? [Clarity, Spec `transportRule Mapping`]
- [x] CHK039 Are `remoteDomain` classification, all eight settings, groups, labels, field order, marker-only settings, and exact-domain exclusion specified? [Completeness, Spec `remoteDomain Mapping`]
- [x] CHK040 Is `auto_reply_enabled` the only exact safe remote-domain setting? [Security, Spec `remoteDomain Mapping`]
- [x] CHK041 Are `inboundConnector` material truth, routing keys, labels, field order, safe counts, and duplicate validation specified? [Completeness, Spec `inboundConnector Mapping`]
- [x] CHK042 Does the connector contract exclude exact IP/domain/host/smart-host/certificate/comment/source/routing values? [Security, Spec `inboundConnector Mapping`]
- [x] CHK043 Do all target mappings fail closed on malformed allowlisted data? [Edge Case, Spec `Functional Requirements`]
## Truth, Surface, And Customer Boundary Quality
- [x] CHK044 Is data ownership N/A because the builder accepts no record/model and performs no lookup? [Consistency, Spec `Spec Scope Fields`]
- [x] CHK045 Are Evidence, Resource, ResourceType, and OperationRun immutability requirements explicit? [Completeness, Spec `Evidence, Resource, And Coverage Immutability`]
- [x] CHK046 Is in-memory model availability separated from persisted `CoverageLevel::Renderable`? [Clarity, Spec `Evidence, Resource, And Coverage Immutability`]
- [x] CHK047 Are ReadModel, old renderer, UI/routes, reports/Review Packs/PDF, CustomerOutputGate, certification, restore, and triggers out of scope? [Coverage, Spec `Functional Requirements`]
- [x] CHK048 Is Product Surface Impact consistently N/A with browser and Human Product Sanity rationale? [Consistency, Spec `Product Surface Impact`]
- [x] CHK049 Is OperationRun neither input, output, persistence, nor a new operation? [Consistency, Spec `OperationRun UX Impact`]
- [x] CHK050 Are migration, environment, queue, scheduler, listener, storage, asset, permission, and external-call impacts all none? [Completeness, Spec `Data And Migration Impact`]
## Test Governance And Acceptance Quality
- [x] CHK051 Does the test classification follow proving purpose: Unit, focused Feature, Heavy-Governance/diff, Browser N/A? [Consistency, Spec `Testing / Lane / Runtime Impact`]
- [x] CHK052 Are array fixtures the default and database fixtures opt-in? [Cost Control, Spec `Testing / Lane / Runtime Impact`]
- [x] CHK053 Are Feature tests limited to concrete database row/attribute immutability while source, cache, filesystem, Review-Pack, report, PDF, and other side-effect absence remains explicit Heavy-Governance review? [Test Governance, tasks.md]
- [x] CHK054 Does planned purity proof cover database, network, filesystem, logging, cache, session, events, and queues? [Coverage, tasks.md]
- [x] CHK055 Are leakage, material-change, protected-value stability, and database immutability measurable? [Acceptance Quality, Spec `Success Criteria`]
- [x] CHK056 Are regression filters, Pint, diff, changed-file, and status checks named? [Completeness, Spec `Testing / Lane / Runtime Impact`]
- [x] CHK057 Are implementation-report fields and target/boundary matrices explicitly documented for this deferred close-out, with runtime work recorded as not executed in `implementation-report.md`? [Completeness, Spec `Consumer-Owned Implementation Report Reference`]
- [x] CHK058 Are tasks explicitly reference-only and non-executable, requiring migration into a consumer-owning spec rather than reactivation through documentation or future evidence alone? [Safety, tasks.md]
- [ ] CHK059 Is there no product question blocking safe implementation? [BLOCKER: current operator workflow/consumer is unresolved; Spec `Open Questions`]
## Review Outcome
- [x] CHK060 Technical cross-artifact findings for approval class/score, gate-resolution wording, protected/sensitive marker validation, unknown-key semantics, hash-authentication limits, compositional protected-value wording, and Feature-vs-Heavy-Governance separation were corrected in preparation files only.
- [x] CHK061 Review outcome is `defer-or-merge-with-first-consumer`, not implementation approval.
- [x] CHK062 Any implementation-loop invocation is prohibited while the candidate/readiness gates remain FAIL.
- [x] CHK063 No application code, test, migration, UI, route, or runtime behavior was changed during preparation.
## Deferral Governance
- [x] Candidate result recorded as FAIL / Defer / 5/12.
- [x] Defer classification recorded in all active artifacts.
- [x] Implementation prohibition recorded in all active artifacts (`Implementation permitted: No`).
- [x] Missing runtime consumer and workflow owner documented.
- [x] Reactivation criteria documented.
- [x] No implementation confirmed.
- [x] Dirty state and diff-safety recorded in `implementation-report.md`.
- [x] Runtime scope and no-product-surface change confirmed.
## Implementation Proof
- Implemented runtime/tests: not executed.
- Runtime implementation: not executed.
- Runtime tests: not executed.
- Browser checks: not run (no rendered UI surface changed).
- Deployment impact: none.
- Merge readiness: not merge-ready as implementation.
## Preparation Result
**Technical contract quality**: PASS after preparation-artifact corrections.
**Requirements checklist**: FAIL because CHK006, CHK007, and CHK059 are blocking product/constitution questions.
**Candidate Selection Gate**: FAIL.
**Spec Readiness Gate**: FAIL for implementation.
**Governance outcome**: DEFERRED.
**Implementation outcome**: NOT EXECUTED.
**Merge outcome**: NOT APPLICABLE.
The smallest safe next action is to identify the first current internal operator consumer and fold this local transformation contract into that consumer-owning spec. No implementation behavior is proven by this checklist.
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink