ahmido
8a889a863e
## Summary - add the Spec 323 Tenantial enterprise UI audit foundation package - add the UI/UX audit registry artifacts, templates, and supporting brand context placeholder - update Spec Kit prompts/templates plus PR fast-feedback guardrails for ongoing UI productization coverage ## Scope - docs-first audit foundation only - no runtime Laravel, Filament, Livewire, route, auth, or database behavior changes intended ## Validation - [x] `git diff --check` - [ ] application test suite run ## Notes - primary spec: `specs/323-tenantial-enterprise-ui-audit-foundation/` - this branch also updates `.gitea/pull_request_template.md`, `.gitea/workflows/test-pr-fast-feedback.yml`, and `scripts/check-ui-productization-coverage` to make the coverage gate durable for future UI work Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de> Reviewed-on: #383
49 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
49 lines
1.9 KiB
Markdown
# UI-004 Governance Inbox
|
|
|
|
| Field | Value |
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
|
| Route | `/admin/governance/inbox` |
|
|
| Source | `GovernanceInbox` |
|
|
| Area / scope | Governance / workspace |
|
|
| Archetype | Findings / Inbox |
|
|
| Design depth | Strategic Surface |
|
|
| Repo truth | repo-verified |
|
|
| Screenshot | `../screenshots/desktop/ui-004-governance-inbox.png` |
|
|
| Browser status | Reached through local workspace route. |
|
|
|
|
## First Five Seconds
|
|
|
|
The page is positioned as a decision queue. It needs to make the human-in-the-loop moment unmistakable: what is pending, why it matters, who owns it, and what should be done next.
|
|
|
|
## Productization Review
|
|
|
|
- Decision-first: strong concept, needs sharper first action.
|
|
- Evidence-first: should link to finding, review, run, and proof artifacts.
|
|
- Context: workspace hub.
|
|
- Customer/auditor safety: operator-facing, but outputs may feed customer review.
|
|
- Diagnostics: should remain lower than recommendation and evidence basis.
|
|
|
|
## Information Inventory
|
|
|
|
Default content should include pending decision type, impact, environment scope, evidence basis, owner, age/SLA, and recommended next action. Any raw reason ownership or payload data should be hidden.
|
|
|
|
## Dangerous Actions
|
|
|
|
Potential approve, reject, accept risk, close, assign, or escalate actions. Target handling requires explicit confirmation and audit posture per action family.
|
|
|
|
## Scores
|
|
|
|
| IA | Density | User Clarity | Sellability | Disclosure | Hierarchy | DS Fit | A11y | Responsive | Components | UX Writing | Perf |
|
|
| ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
|
|
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
|
|
|
|
## Top Issues
|
|
|
|
1. Needs one dominant queue-clearing action model.
|
|
2. Decision evidence and status dimensions must be separated.
|
|
3. Customer-safe downstream wording needs review.
|
|
|
|
## Target Direction
|
|
|
|
P0 individual target mockup. This should become the central operator decision surface rather than another technical list.
|