TenantAtlas/specs/400-product-contract-spec-completeness-audit/spec.md

Feature Specification: Spec 400 - Product Contract & Spec Completeness Audit

Feature Branch: 400-product-contract-spec-completeness-audit Created: 2026-06-22 Status: Draft / Ready for preparation review Type: Read-only audit / discovery / promotion gate Input: User-provided "Spec 400 - Product Contract & Spec Completeness Audit" draft, current roadmap and spec-candidate queue, Specs 376-399 productization lineage, and the Product Surface Contract.

Candidate Selection Context

• Selected candidate: Product Contract & Spec Completeness Audit.
• Source: Direct user-provided Spec 400 draft in the Codex attachment.
• Why selected: docs/product/spec-candidates.md currently says there is no safe automatic next-best-prep target, but the operator supplied a direct manual-promotion candidate. The candidate addresses a different question from the recent Product Surface Contract implementation specs: whether TenantPilot is sufficiently specified for future agents to continue without inventing product, RBAC, evidence, customer-output, failure-state, or surface-ownership decisions.
• Close alternatives deferred:
  • management-report-pdf-staging-runtime-validation: manual backlog follow-through, already represented by Specs 378-380.
  • governance-artifact-lifecycle-retention-runtime: broader runtime product decision, manual promotion only.
  • provider-readiness-onboarding-productization: optional/manual provider-readiness work, not the supplied audit gate.
  • cross-domain-indicator-runtime-follow-through: semantic runtime adoption, not a whole-product specification completeness audit.
  • Reopening Specs 395-399: forbidden; they are context and recent completed/current product-surface work, not preparation targets.
• Roadmap relationship: Supports the current productization and moat priorities by creating a read-only decision gate before more customer-ready product work proceeds.
• Completed-spec guardrail result: No specs/400-product-contract-spec-completeness-audit package existed before this preparation. Related specs 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381-399, and earlier productization specs are context only. Completed close-out, validation, screenshots, browser evidence, checked task history, implementation reports, and post-implementation review language must not be rewritten or normalized.
• Smallest viable implementation slice: Perform a repo-based, read-only product-contract completeness audit across current specs, docs, routes, Filament panels/pages/resources, Livewire/views, policies, models, tests, and existing browser/runtime evidence. Produce a final audit report with a Product Contract Coverage Matrix, Decision Debt Register, Agent Hallucination Risk Map, Spec Gap List, surface freeze/reduction recommendations, promotion readiness answers, and one recommended next action. Do not implement fixes.
• Feature description for Spec Kit: Determine whether TenantPilot is sufficiently specified for customer-ready productization without requiring implementation agents to invent product, architecture, RBAC, evidence, OperationRun, customer-output, failure-state, or navigation/surface ownership decisions.

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

• Problem: TenantPilot now has many implemented and prepared productization specs, but future agents may still have to infer critical product decisions from implementation, naming, or precedent instead of explicit contract artifacts.
• Today's failure: A future implementation can pass tests while inventing intended behavior for roles, customer visibility, evidence/currentness, OperationRun proof, stale/failed/empty states, restore readiness, report output, or page ownership because no current audit says which product contracts are complete and which are decision debt.
• User-visible improvement: Product and engineering reviewers get a single evidence-backed answer to whether the next implementation block can proceed safely, plus a bounded list of gaps that must become specs or decisions first.
• Smallest enterprise-capable version: A read-only audit that inventories major surfaces, scores contract completeness, distinguishes implementation bugs from missing product decisions, and groups recommended follow-up specs without editing runtime or completed specs.
• Explicit non-goals: No implementation, no bug fixing, no visual redesign, no copy cleanup, no migrations, no tests, no fixture creation, no broad browser bug hunt, no security penetration test, no performance audit, no deployment review, and no automatic spec explosion.
• Permanent complexity imported: One spec package and a future final audit report. The scoring model, decision-debt register, hallucination-risk map, and spec gap list are report-only audit outputs, not runtime product truth, persisted state, or reusable application frameworks.
• Why now: Specs 395-399 installed and exercised Product Surface Contract enforcement and several runtime-reduction passes. The next risk is false confidence that all product contracts are now explicit enough for customer-ready productization.
• Why not local: A local note on one page or a narrow Product Surface Contract pass cannot answer the whole-agent question: "Can implementation continue without inventing product decisions?"
• Approval class: Core Enterprise.
• Red flags triggered: Many surfaces and audit scoring axes. Defense: the slice is read-only, report-only, and explicitly forbids runtime changes, new frameworks, new persisted truth, and rewriting completed specs.
• Score: Nutzen: 2 | Dringlichkeit: 2 | Scope: 2 | Komplexitaet: 2 | Produktnaehe: 2 | Wiederverwendung: 2 | Gesamt: 12/12
• Decision: approve as a bounded read-only product-contract completeness audit.

Problem Statement

TenantPilot has reached a stage where the main product risk is not only missing implementation. The larger risk is implicit product logic. Agents can keep adding screens, flows, and rules while key contracts are still ambiguous.

This audit answers:

Can an implementation agent safely continue building TenantPilot without inventing product decisions?

A flow is sufficiently defined only when existing repo/spec artifacts identify who uses it, what decision or action it supports, what data is authoritative, what scope and permissions apply, what evidence is created or displayed, what the customer may see, what stale/failed/empty states mean, what tests prove the contract, and what is explicitly out of scope.

If the answer depends on assumption, convention, or "probably", it is a finding.

Product / Business Value

The audit prevents false productization confidence. It creates one reviewable gate that tells the operator whether TenantPilot is ready for the next implementation block, a full browser/UX/runtime audit, customer-facing hardening, or controlled pilot work. It also limits future specs to the smallest coherent follow-up set instead of one spec per small finding.

Primary Users / Operators

• Product owner deciding whether customer-ready productization can continue.
• Senior implementation agent deciding whether existing specs are explicit enough to implement safely.
• Engineering reviewer checking whether future work has a clear product contract.
• MSP/operator representative whose workflows depend on clear role, scope, evidence, and next-action semantics.
• Customer/auditor reviewer whose output must not expose internal-only evidence or false readiness claims.

Spec Scope Fields (mandatory)

• Scope: canonical-view / read-only audit / promotion gate.
• Primary Routes: No route is added or changed. The audit inspects current /admin, /system, and relevant customer/report/download surfaces where repo evidence exists.
• Data Ownership: No data ownership changes. The audit must classify existing workspace-owned, managed-environment-owned, tenant-owned, platform-owned, evidence, OperationRun, report, and audit artifacts from repo truth only.
• RBAC: No runtime authorization changes. The audit inspects whether current specs/code/tests define workspace membership, managed-environment entitlement, capability requirements, deny-as-not-found semantics, platform-plane separation, customer-readonly boundaries, and audit responsibilities for each critical surface.

For canonical-view specs:

• Default filter behavior when tenant-context is active: The audit observes existing route-owned workspace/environment scope and page-level filters. It must flag any surface whose default scope behavior is ambiguous or only implied.
• Explicit entitlement checks preventing cross-tenant leakage: The audit must inspect policies, gates, scoped resolvers, Filament queries, global search posture, route generation, tests, and existing browser evidence where relevant, but it must not change enforcement.

No Legacy / No Backward Compatibility Constraint (mandatory)

TenantPilot is pre-production for this audit. The audit must not introduce compatibility behavior.

• Compatibility posture: read-only assessment; no compatibility changes.
• Legacy aliases, fallback readers, hidden routes, duplicate UI, old labels, or historical fixtures kept?: no new aliases, readers, routes, UI, labels, or fixtures are introduced.
• Why clean assessment is safe now: The audit does not mutate runtime behavior. Existing historical specs and implementation reports remain immutable context.

The audit must not reopen or rewrite completed specs to satisfy current Product Surface wording.

UI Surface Impact (mandatory - UI-COV-001)

Does this spec add, remove, rename, or materially change any reachable UI surface?

• No UI surface impact
• Existing page changed
• New page/route added
• Navigation changed
• Filament panel/provider surface changed
• New modal/drawer/wizard/action added
• New table/form/state added
• Customer-facing surface changed
• Dangerous action changed
• Status/evidence/review presentation changed
• Workspace/environment context presentation changed

UI/Productization Coverage

N/A - no reachable UI surface impact.

• No-impact rationale: Spec 400 prepares and later executes a read-only audit. It may inspect UI files, routes, existing screenshots, and existing browser evidence, but it must not change rendered pages, navigation, Filament panel providers, resources, Livewire components, Blade views, CSS, JavaScript, actions, tables, forms, or customer-facing output.

Product Surface Impact

Reference: docs/product/standards/product-surface-contract.md.

• Product Surface Contract applies?: yes as an audit standard; no rendered product surface is changed.
• Page archetype: N/A for this spec package. The audit must classify inspected surfaces against the applicable Product Surface archetypes where evidence exists.
• Primary user question: "Can future implementation continue without inventing product decisions?"
• Primary action: Produce a gate result and recommended next action.
• Surface budget result: N/A for runtime; the audit must flag surfaces whose budget/Technical Annex/default-detail posture is not contractually defined.
• Technical Annex / deep-link demotion: The audit inspects whether OperationRun, raw evidence, IDs, payloads, source keys, detectors, fingerprints, logs, and internal proof are defined as product-default, secondary, or technical/audit detail. It must not change links.
• Canonical status vocabulary: The audit checks whether product-facing statuses map to canonical vocabulary or have explicit exceptions.
• Visible complexity impact: neutral at runtime. The future audit may recommend reduction/freeze actions, but must not perform them.
• Product Surface exceptions: none for this preparation. Any future audit finding may recommend a later bounded spec or product decision.

Browser Verification Plan (mandatory)

• Browser proof required?: no for this preparation package.
• No-browser rationale: N/A - no rendered UI surface changed.
• Focused path when required: N/A. The future audit may read existing browser artifacts and may run read-only browser inspection only if explicitly chosen as audit evidence; it must not mutate app state or create fixtures.
• Primary interaction to execute: N/A for preparation.
• Console, Livewire, Filament, network, and 500-error checks: N/A for preparation; if the audit uses browser evidence, record exact scope and limitations.
• Full-suite failure triage: N/A.

Human Product Sanity Check (mandatory)

• Required?: yes as workflow sanity for the final audit report, not as rendered-page sanity for preparation.
• No-human-sanity rationale: no rendered surface changes.
• Reviewer questions: Does the audit answer the core gate question? Are P0/P1 findings evidence-backed? Are recommendations bounded? Does it avoid inventing product decisions? Does it avoid rewriting completed specs?
• Planned result location: final audit report / implementation response.

Product Surface Merge Gate Checklist (mandatory)

• No-legacy posture or approved exception recorded.
• Product Surface Impact is completed as audit-only with no rendered surface change.
• Browser proof is N/A - no rendered UI surface changed for preparation.
• Human Product Sanity is planned as report sanity rather than rendered-page sanity.
• Product Surface exceptions are none for preparation.
• Implementation report/final response must state tests/browser result, Livewire v4 compliance, provider registration location, global search posture, destructive/high-impact action posture, asset strategy, deployment impact, and no application implementation performed.

Cross-Cutting / Shared Pattern Reuse

• Cross-cutting feature?: yes, as a read-only audit across product contracts.
• Interaction class(es): evidence/report viewers, operation proof, dashboard/readiness signals, restore readiness, provider state, customer output, governance inbox, review packs, navigation/surface ownership, status messaging, and audit logs are inspected only.
• Systems touched: Spec artifacts only. Runtime systems are read-only inspection targets.
• Existing pattern(s) to extend: Product Surface Contract, Product Surface gate wording from Spec 395, recent Product Surface migration specs, UI audit artifacts, route inventory, design coverage matrix, implementation ledger, and existing Spec Kit templates.
• Shared contract / presenter / builder / renderer to reuse: N/A - no runtime code.
• Why the existing shared path is sufficient or insufficient: Existing contracts govern individual changes. This audit determines whether those contracts collectively cover the whole product enough for safe continuation.
• Allowed deviation and why: none.
• Consistency impact: Findings must use consistent severity, evidence, and resolution type language.
• Review focus: Confirm the audit does not become implementation, bug fixing, or speculative product design.

OperationRun UX Impact

• Touches OperationRun start/completion/link UX?: no runtime change. OperationRun proof semantics are audited only.
• Shared OperationRun UX contract/layer reused: N/A.
• Delegated start/completion UX behaviors: N/A.
• Local surface-owned behavior that remains: N/A.
• Queued DB-notification policy: N/A.
• Terminal notification path: N/A.
• Exception required?: none.

Provider Boundary / Platform Core Check

• Shared provider/platform boundary touched?: no runtime seam change. The audit inspects provider/platform boundary definitions.
• Boundary classification: audit target only.
• Seams affected: Provider connections, provider freshness, required permissions, managed environments, report/evidence output, Graph contract references, and provider-specific vocabulary may be inspected.
• Neutral platform terms preserved or introduced: No new runtime terms. Audit language should preserve workspace, managed environment, provider, connection, operation, evidence, customer output, and technical/audit detail.
• Provider-specific semantics retained and why: Existing Microsoft/Intune semantics remain repo truth where provider-owned.
• Why this does not deepen provider coupling accidentally: No code, labels, persistence, routing, or operator vocabulary is changed.
• Follow-up path: Provider-boundary gaps become bounded follow-up recommendations, not in-scope fixes.

UI / Surface Guardrail Impact

N/A - no operator-facing surface change. The audit inspects existing operator/customer/system surfaces and produces report findings only.

Decision-First Surface Role

N/A - no surface changed. The audit must classify inspected surfaces by decision role where evidence supports it and must flag ambiguity where the role is not specified.

Audience-Aware Disclosure

N/A - no disclosure changed. The audit must inspect whether customer-readable, operator diagnostic, and support/raw evidence layers are specified for critical surfaces.

UI/UX Surface Classification

N/A - no surface changed. The audit may report classification gaps.

Operator Surface Contract

N/A - no new or materially refactored operator-facing page. The audit checks whether existing pages have a clear operator surface contract.

Proportionality Review (mandatory when structural complexity is introduced)

• New source of truth?: no runtime source of truth. The final audit report is review evidence only.
• New persisted entity/table/artifact?: no application entity/table. A report may be produced in the final response; a spec-local file is allowed only if the operator explicitly asks for a file output during audit execution.
• New abstraction?: no runtime abstraction.
• New enum/state/reason family?: no runtime status family. Severity and scoring labels are report-only classifications.
• New cross-domain UI framework/taxonomy?: no runtime framework. The audit uses existing Product Surface and Spec Kit vocabulary.
• Current operator problem: Productization can continue while agents still infer product decisions from implementation details.
• Existing structure is insufficient because: Existing specs prove slices, but no current artifact answers whether the combined product contract is complete enough for the next implementation block.
• Narrowest correct implementation: Read-only inventory, scoring, decision-debt register, hallucination-risk map, spec gap list, surface freeze/reduction recommendations, promotion readiness answers, and a single next action.
• Ownership cost: One audit pass and future review of the final report. No recurring runtime maintenance.
• Alternative intentionally rejected: Creating immediate fix specs or runtime changes from assumed gaps. The audit must identify decision debt before implementation.
• Release truth: Current-release productization readiness gate.

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

• Test purpose / classification: N/A for preparation; read-only audit validation for execution.
• Validation lane(s): N/A for runtime. Future audit execution must record read-only commands used and dirty state before/after.
• Why this classification and these lanes are sufficient: The spec does not change runtime behavior or tests.
• New or expanded test families: none.
• Fixture / helper cost impact: none.
• Heavy-family visibility / justification: none.
• Special surface test profile: read-only product-contract audit.
• Standard-native relief or required special coverage: N/A - no UI code changes.
• Reviewer handoff: Confirm no application code/tests/docs outside the spec package are changed, no completed specs are rewritten, all P0/P1 findings cite evidence, and recommended follow-up specs are minimal.
• Budget / baseline / trend impact: none.
• Escalation needed: final report may recommend follow-up specs; no implementation in this spec.
• Active feature PR close-out entry: N/A unless this preparation package is reviewed as a specs-only PR.
• Planned validation commands:
  • git status --short --branch
  • git diff --name-only
  • git diff --check
  • Read-only repo inspection commands selected during audit.

User Scenarios & Testing (mandatory)

User Story 1 - Determine Whether Product Contracts Are Complete Enough (Priority: P1)

As a product reviewer, I want a repo-based gate result that says whether implementation can continue without inventing product decisions, so that customer-ready productization does not proceed on implicit assumptions.

Why this priority: The gate result is the primary value of the audit.

Independent Test: The final audit report includes exactly one Candidate Gate Result: PASS, PASS WITH CONDITIONS, or FAIL, with a short evidence-backed reason.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given a critical surface lacks explicit role, scope, RBAC, evidence, customer visibility, or state semantics, When the audit scores the surface, Then the report records a decision-debt finding instead of inventing the missing contract.
2. Given no P0/P1 decision debts remain across critical surfaces, When the audit completes, Then the report may return PASS with evidence and remaining residual risks.

---

User Story 2 - Inventory And Score Critical Product Surfaces (Priority: P1)

As an implementation lead, I want every critical TenantPilot surface scored for product-contract completeness, so that future work can target the real gaps instead of broad rewrites.

Why this priority: Without a surface matrix, recommendations become subjective and noisy.

Independent Test: The final audit report contains a Product Contract Coverage Matrix covering at least the required primary surfaces from this spec.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given an audited surface has repo evidence for purpose, role, scope, RBAC, source of truth, evidence/audit, customer visibility, state semantics, and test proof, When it is scored, Then the matrix records dimension scores and an overall risk.
2. Given a surface lacks evidence for one dimension, When it is scored, Then the matrix records the gap and does not treat implementation presence as product-contract proof.

---

User Story 3 - Identify Decision Debt And Hallucination Risk (Priority: P2)

As a future agent reviewer, I want decision debt and hallucination risks named with concrete evidence, so that implementation agents know where to stop and ask for a product decision.

Why this priority: This prevents agents from filling gaps with plausible but unapproved behavior.

Independent Test: The final audit report contains a Decision Debt Register and Agent Hallucination Risk Map with severity, evidence, impact, and containment.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given a future agent would likely invent a status, permission, customer-output category, evidence type, navigation structure, readiness rule, or fallback behavior, When the audit identifies the risk, Then the report records trigger, impact, and containment.
2. Given a behavior contradicts an existing contract, When the audit records it, Then it is classified as implementation defect rather than product-contract gap.

---

User Story 4 - Recommend Minimal Follow-Up Specs Or Decisions (Priority: P3)

As a product owner, I want findings grouped into the smallest coherent follow-up set, so that the next step is bounded and reviewable.

Why this priority: The audit must prevent automatic spec explosion.

Independent Test: The final audit report includes a Spec Gap List, surface freeze/reduction recommendations, promotion readiness answers, and one operational recommended next action.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given multiple small findings share a product decision root cause, When the report recommends follow-up, Then it groups them into one coherent spec or product decision instead of many tiny specs.
2. Given a finding is only implementation feedback or can defer, When the report classifies it, Then it is not promoted into a spec recommendation.

Edge Cases

• A critical route or surface cannot be inspected because fixtures/auth/runtime are unavailable.
• A completed spec contains close-out language that looks inconsistent with newer gate wording.
• A recent implementation report proves a runtime fix, but the corresponding product contract remains under-specified.
• A surface is implemented and tested but lacks customer visibility semantics.
• Existing browser screenshots prove rendering but not product-contract completeness.
• Multiple surfaces use similar readiness words with different implied meanings.
• A missing product decision could be hidden by passing tests.
• The working tree becomes dirty during read-only audit commands.

Functional Requirements

• FR-001: The audit MUST inspect repo/spec evidence for at least these surfaces: Workspace-first admin surface, System panel, workspace/environment context selection, Baseline Compare, restore preview/readiness, backup/restore flows, provider connections, provider freshness/permission semantics, evidence overview/anchors, findings, review packs, customer review workspace, OperationRun proof/audit trail, governance inbox, reports/exports/customer output, dashboard/readiness surfaces, support/operational handoff, and stale/failed/partial/empty/warning states.
• FR-002: The audit MUST create an evidence summary listing inspected and not inspected specs, docs, routes/panels, models/policies, tests, views/pages, and browser/runtime evidence.
• FR-003: The audit MUST score each audited surface from 0 to 4 across product purpose, user/role ownership, scope boundary, RBAC/capability contract, source of truth, evidence/audit contract, customer visibility, state semantics, navigation/IA contract, and test/proof coverage.
• FR-004: The audit MUST produce a Product Contract Coverage Matrix with surface, purpose, role/user, scope, RBAC, source of truth, evidence/audit, customer visibility, state semantics, test/proof, score, and risk.
• FR-005: The audit MUST produce a Decision Debt Register with ID, surface, missing decision, why it matters, current evidence, severity, and recommended resolution type.
• FR-006: The audit MUST produce an Agent Hallucination Risk Map with surface, likely hallucination, trigger, impact, and containment.
• FR-007: The audit MUST produce a Spec Gap List that groups future work into the minimum coherent set and labels amendment, new bounded spec, product decision, test contract addition, browser proof addition, documentation clarification, explicit defer, or not-a-spec review feedback.
• FR-008: The audit MUST produce surface freeze/reduction recommendations for major surfaces using one of: freeze as product contract stable, keep but clarify, keep but merge/reduce, hide from customer-facing path, defer from pilot scope, or requires product decision before more work.
• FR-009: The audit MUST answer promotion readiness for next implementation block, full browser/UX/runtime audit, customer-facing hardening, and controlled pilot as Yes, No, or Conditional with one short reason each.
• FR-010: Every P0/P1 finding MUST cite concrete repo/spec evidence such as file path, line number when practical, route, test, spec section, model/policy reference, or visible page/surface reference.
• FR-011: The audit MUST distinguish product-contract gaps, implementation defects, test gaps, surface drift, and terminology drift.
• FR-012: The audit MUST not fix bugs, create tests, create migrations, edit code, edit docs outside this spec package, rewrite completed specs, normalize labels, or add new product decisions.
• FR-013: The audit MUST record dirty state before and after execution and stop/report if a supposedly read-only command changes files.
• FR-014: The audit MUST end with one operational recommended next action.

Non-Functional Requirements

• NFR-001: Work strictly repo-based; no external assumptions may override repository truth.
• NFR-002: Prefer fewer, stronger findings over long noisy lists.
• NFR-003: Treat silence as a finding, not as permission.
• NFR-004: Keep recommendation scope bounded and avoid automatic spec explosion.
• NFR-005: Preserve completed spec history and validation evidence.
• NFR-006: Use read-only commands only during audit execution unless the operator explicitly requests a report file under this spec package.

Explicitly Out Of Scope

• Application implementation.
• Bug fixing.
• Visual redesign.
• Copywriting cleanup.
• Database migrations.
• Test creation or modification.
• Browser-wide bug hunt.
• Security penetration testing.
• Performance audit.
• Dependency upgrade.
• Production deployment review.
• Sales/marketing positioning review.
• Customer launch approval by itself.

Required Final Audit Report Structure

The future audit must use this exact top-level structure:

# Spec 400 Audit Report - Product Contract & Spec Completeness

## A. Candidate Gate Result
## B. Evidence Summary
## C. Product Contract Coverage Matrix
## D. Decision Debt Register
## E. Agent Hallucination Risk Map
## F. Spec Gap List
## G. Surface Freeze / Reduction Recommendation
## H. Promotion Readiness
## I. Recommended Next Step

Success Criteria

• SC-001: A reviewer can decide from the report whether the next implementation block may proceed, may proceed with conditions, or must stop for product-contract fixes.
• SC-002: 100% of P0/P1 findings include concrete repo/spec evidence.
• SC-003: The report covers every primary surface class listed in FR-001 or marks it explicitly not inspected with a reason.
• SC-004: The report recommends the minimum coherent follow-up set and does not create one spec per small finding.
• SC-005: Dirty state before and after the audit is recorded and unchanged unless the operator explicitly asked for a report file.
• SC-006: No application runtime files, tests, migrations, config, routes, views, policies, models, jobs, or completed spec artifacts are modified.

Assumptions

• The operator-provided Spec 400 draft is a manual promotion even though the automatic candidate queue is empty.
• The default output for audit execution is the final response. A durable report file under specs/400-product-contract-spec-completeness-audit/ requires explicit operator approval during audit execution.
• Existing completed specs and implementation reports are reliable historical evidence unless current repo truth contradicts them.
• If browser/runtime inspection is unavailable, the audit records the limitation rather than creating fixtures or changing runtime behavior.

Risks

• The audit scope is broad; the implementation agent must keep findings high-signal and evidence-backed.
• Product-contract gaps may be confused with implementation defects unless classification is applied consistently.
• Existing productization specs may look incomplete under newer wording; completed-spec history must be preserved.
• Running non-mutating framework commands can still create caches/logs in some environments; dirty-state checks are mandatory.

Open Questions

None blocking preparation. During audit execution, use response-only output unless the operator explicitly asks for a spec-local report file.

Follow-Up Spec Candidates (report-only placeholders)

The audit may recommend follow-up specs only after evidence is collected. Likely grouping categories, not pre-approved scope:

• Customer-visible evidence and report contract gaps.
• Restore/readiness and safe-action decision semantics.
• Provider freshness and permission-state contract gaps.
• OperationRun proof/currentness and audit-trail contract gaps.
• Surface ownership, navigation, or Product Surface budget clarifications.
• Test/browser proof additions where behavior is already defined but not proven.