TenantAtlas/specs/407-full-browser-ux-runtime-audit/spec.md

# Feature Specification: Spec 407 - Full Browser/UX Runtime Audit

**Feature Branch**: `407-full-browser-ux-runtime-audit`
**Created**: 2026-06-24
**Status**: Draft / Ready for implementation preparation review
**Type**: Read-only browser audit / UX runtime audit / customer-readiness gate
**Input**: User-provided "Spec 407 - Full Browser/UX Runtime Audit" draft from `/Users/ahmeddarrazi/.codex/attachments/7a246551-6eb9-4829-b6bf-e527f805f39e/pasted-text.txt`, Specs 400-406 lineage, `docs/product/spec-candidates.md`, `docs/product/roadmap.md`, and the Product Surface Contract.

## Candidate Selection Context

- **Selected candidate**: Spec 407 - Full Browser/UX Runtime Audit.
- **Source location**: Direct user-provided Spec 407 draft in the current request.
- **Why selected**: `docs/product/spec-candidates.md` states that no safe automatic next-best-prep target remains, but the operator supplied a concrete manual candidate. Spec 407 is the direct broad browser/runtime gate after Specs 400-406 and answers whether TenantPilot behaves coherently enough for controlled pilot, customer-facing hardening, or targeted remediation.
- **Why close alternatives were deferred**:
  - `management-report-pdf-staging-runtime-validation` is already represented by Specs 404 and 380; remaining external Dokploy/staging proof is a condition to carry into the audit, not a new prep target here.
  - `governance-artifact-lifecycle-retention-runtime` is now Spec 406 and is completed as `PASS WITH CONDITIONS`; its residual product decisions are audit context, not hidden Spec 407 implementation scope.
  - `provider-readiness-onboarding-productization`, `cross-domain-indicator-runtime-follow-through`, `manual-system-panel-browser-fixture-or-audit-procedure`, and `first-governed-ai-runtime-consumer` remain manual-promotion items and are not the supplied after-406 gate.
  - Reopening completed Specs 400-406 is forbidden; their close-out, validation, browser evidence, smoke history, and task markers are historical context only.
- **Roadmap relationship**: Supports the current productization and moat priorities by turning the recent trust/productization hardening block into a decision-quality readiness answer before pilot or customer-facing claims advance.
- **Completed-spec guardrail result**:
  - Specs 400-406 exist and are read-only lineage. Specs 401-406 contain implementation reports, validation results, browser/smoke evidence, or completed task markers; none may be rewritten, normalized, unchecked, or stripped.
  - Spec 403 is `PASS` for evidence/currentness closure in its touched scope.
  - Specs 404 and 405 are `PASS WITH CONDITIONS` because external staging/Dokploy validation remains unavailable.
  - Spec 406 is `PASS WITH CONDITIONS` because legal hold, export-before-delete, broad purge, cross-family deletion governance, and Spec 404/405 external conditions remain product/release decisions.
  - No `specs/407-full-browser-ux-runtime-audit/` package existed before this preparation. An unrelated branch named `407-msp-mittelstand-use-case-pages` exists but has no matching Spec 407 audit package.
- **Smallest viable implementation slice**: Execute a read-only browser/runtime audit of existing TenantPilot surfaces, using available fixtures and actors only; produce a decision-quality report with coverage matrix, journey matrix, classified findings, readiness decision, and grouped remediation plan. Do not fix issues, create tests, alter data intentionally, or create a saved report unless the operator explicitly asks during execution.
- **Feature description for Spec Kit**: Audit TenantPilot end-to-end through the browser after Specs 400-406 to determine whether the application is ready for controlled pilot, customer-facing hardening, sales/demo use, production deployment claims, or targeted remediation, while preserving a strict read-only boundary.

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

- **Problem**: TenantPilot has completed a trust/productization hardening block, but no current whole-app browser/runtime audit proves that admin, system, customer, evidence, restore, backup, report, and lifecycle surfaces behave coherently together.
- **Today's failure**: The product could appear specification-complete while still hiding runtime errors, misleading readiness/currentness claims, unsafe action presentation, broken downloads, navigation ambiguity, or customer/internal boundary issues that only emerge in browser use.
- **User-visible improvement**: The operator gets one evidence-backed readiness answer: `PASS`, `PASS WITH CONDITIONS`, or `FAIL`, plus a prioritized remediation plan grouped into the fewest coherent follow-up specs.
- **Smallest enterprise-capable version**: A read-only browser audit using available actors and fixtures, plus route/surface inventory, critical journey walkthroughs, runtime/console checks, authorization boundary checks, evidence/currentness checks, lifecycle/download checks, coverage matrix, journey matrix, findings, and readiness decision.
- **Explicit non-goals**: No fixes, refactors, UI redesign, copy cleanup, tests, migrations, seeders, fixtures, new surfaces, docs outside this package, route changes, policy changes, database writes beyond unavoidable login/session state, destructive actions, customer-output release, or speculative product decisions.
- **Permanent complexity imported**: One Spec Kit package and a future audit report. Severity labels, matrices, and readiness decisions are report-only audit outputs, not runtime truth, persisted state, status families, or product frameworks.
- **Why now**: Spec 406 explicitly recommends a full browser/UX runtime audit after its gate. Specs 400-406 closed or bounded adjacent trust risks, so the next responsible step is broad runtime evidence before pilot/customer claims.
- **Why not local**: A local smoke test or one-page check cannot answer whether cross-surface navigation, authorization, customer-safe output, evidence truth, report/download behavior, and lifecycle claims hold together end-to-end.
- **Approval class**: Core Enterprise.
- **Red flags triggered**: Broad surface coverage and audit matrix. Defense: the slice is read-only, report-only, forbids application/runtime changes, and groups findings instead of creating one spec per issue.
- **Score**: Nutzen: 2 | Dringlichkeit: 2 | Scope: 2 | Komplexitaet: 2 | Produktnaehe: 2 | Wiederverwendung: 2 | **Gesamt: 12/12**
- **Decision**: approve as a bounded read-only browser/runtime readiness gate.

## Problem Statement

Spec 407 answers:

```text
After Specs 400-406, is TenantPilot ready to proceed toward controlled pilot, customer-facing hardening, sales/demo use, production deployment claims, or targeted remediation?
```

The answer must be based on browser/runtime evidence, not assumptions. The audit inspects visible product quality, runtime stability, UX consistency, authorization boundaries, workflow clarity, evidence/currentness truth, report/download behavior, and governance artifact lifecycle behavior.

## Product / Business Value

- Prevents false readiness confidence after several successful but bounded hardening specs.
- Identifies customer/pilot blockers before external users encounter them.
- Distinguishes runtime defects, productization defects, proof gaps, product decision gaps, and already-known deferred items.
- Produces a small remediation map instead of one issue/spec per observation.
- Gives the next implementation block a concrete go/no-go signal.

## Primary Users / Operators

- Product owner deciding whether controlled pilot or customer-facing hardening may proceed.
- Workspace admins and limited users whose workflows depend on clear workspace/environment, provider, backup, restore, evidence, report, and governance states.
- System operators validating `/system` separation and operational clarity.
- Customer reviewers consuming released review/report outputs.
- Engineering reviewers and implementation agents using the audit report to scope the next remediation loop.

## Spec Scope Fields *(mandatory)*

- **Scope**: canonical-view / read-only browser audit / customer-readiness gate.
- **Primary Routes / Surfaces**: Existing `/admin`, `/system`, customer/review/report/download surfaces, and visible routes discovered from route list, Filament panels/resources/pages/widgets, Livewire/Blade views, and navigation. No route is added or changed.
- **Data Ownership**: No ownership changes. The audit classifies existing workspace-owned, managed-environment-owned, customer-output, OperationRun, evidence, report, audit, and platform-owned records only as observed/read.
- **RBAC**: No authorization behavior changes. The audit checks workspace membership, managed-environment entitlement, platform-plane separation, customer-reviewer boundaries, direct URL behavior, global search/navigation exposure, 404 vs 403 semantics, and destructive/high-impact action affordances.

For canonical or mixed-scope surfaces:

- **Default filter behavior when environment context is active**: Existing route-owned workspace/environment scope and explicit `environment_id` filters remain repo truth. The audit must flag any hidden context drift or stale context behavior it observes.
- **Explicit entitlement checks preventing cross-tenant leakage**: Representative direct URL, navigation, global search, download/export, and customer-review access checks must be performed where fixtures permit. Missing fixtures are recorded as missing audit conditions, not invented proof.

## No Legacy / No Backward Compatibility Constraint *(mandatory)*

TenantPilot is pre-production for this audit.

- **Compatibility posture**: read-only assessment of current canonical behavior.
- **Legacy aliases, fallback readers, hidden routes, duplicate UI, old labels, or historical fixtures kept?**: no new compatibility behavior is introduced.
- **Why clean assessment is safe now**: The audit does not mutate runtime behavior. It may recommend clean follow-up remediation, but it must not implement compatibility shims or rewrite completed specs.

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

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

- [x] 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 407 prepares and later executes a read-only browser/runtime audit. It may navigate existing UI, inspect routes, read browser console/network state, and record findings, but it must not change rendered pages, navigation, Filament panels/resources/pages/widgets, Livewire components, Blade views, CSS, JavaScript, actions, tables, forms, routes, tests, or customer-facing output.

## Product Surface Impact

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

- **Product Surface Contract applies?**: yes as the audit standard; no rendered product surface is changed.
- **Page archetype**: N/A for this spec package. The audit must classify inspected pages as Dashboard, Receipt, Decision, Inbox, Wizard, Report, Search/Index, Technical Annex, Settings, or System Admin where evidence supports it.
- **Primary user question**: "Does TenantPilot behave like a coherent, customer-ready enterprise SaaS when used end-to-end in the browser?"
- **Primary action**: Produce a readiness decision and bounded remediation recommendation.
- **Surface budget result**: N/A for preparation. The audit flags budget/deep-link/default-detail violations as findings.
- **Technical Annex / deep-link demotion**: The audit checks whether OperationRun links, raw evidence IDs, payloads, source keys, detectors, fingerprints, technical logs, and internal proof stay demoted from customer/product defaults.
- **Canonical status vocabulary**: The audit checks visible states against Ready, Needs attention, Blocked, Running, Failed, Expired, Not configured, Unknown, Historical, Superseded, and severity labels Critical, High, Medium, Low, Info.
- **Visible complexity impact**: neutral at runtime. The future report may recommend reductions, but must not perform them.
- **Product Surface exceptions**: none for preparation. Observed exceptions become findings or follow-up recommendations.

## Browser Verification Plan *(mandatory)*

- **Browser proof required?**: yes for Spec 407 execution because browser/runtime evidence is the product of this audit, even though no rendered UI changes are made.
- **No-browser rationale**: N/A.
- **Focused path when required**: full existing application surface as available, including login/auth, admin shell, system shell, workspace/environment context, dashboard/readiness, baseline compare, restore readiness, backup flows, provider readiness, evidence, OperationRun proof, findings/governance inbox, review packs, customer review workspace, report/PDF downloads, governance artifact lifecycle states, users/membership/access-scope surfaces if present, navigation, breadcrumbs, tables, filters, search, and global search.
- **Primary interaction to execute**: read-only navigation, filtering, searching, opening details, inspecting disabled/confirmation states without completing destructive actions, and attempting representative unauthorized/cross-workspace access where safe.
- **Console, Livewire, Filament, network, and 500-error checks**: required.
- **Full-suite failure triage**: unrelated failures may be documented only when focused browser evidence supports the classification.

## Human Product Sanity Check *(mandatory)*

- **Required?**: yes as final audit report sanity.
- **No-human-sanity rationale**: N/A.
- **Reviewer questions**: Does the audit answer pilot/customer readiness? Are P0/P1 findings concrete? Are critical journeys covered or clearly blocked? Are technical details/customer boundaries evaluated? Are recommendations bounded and non-speculative?
- **Planned result location**: final Spec 407 audit report in the assistant response, or spec-local report only if the operator explicitly requests saved output during audit execution.

## Product Surface Merge Gate Checklist *(mandatory)*

- [x] No-legacy posture or approved exception recorded.
- [x] Product Surface Impact is completed as audit-only with no rendered surface change.
- [x] Browser proof is required as the audit output.
- [x] Human Product Sanity is planned as final-report sanity.
- [x] Product Surface exceptions are `none` for preparation.
- [x] Final report must state Livewire v4 compliance, provider registration location, global search posture, destructive/high-impact action posture, asset strategy, tests/browser result, deployment impact, visible complexity outcome, and explicit no-implementation status.

## Cross-Cutting / Shared Pattern Reuse

- **Cross-cutting feature?**: yes, as a read-only audit across visible product surfaces and shared interaction families.
- **Interaction class(es)**: navigation, global search, status/readiness messaging, dashboards, inboxes, reports/downloads, evidence/report viewers, OperationRun proof, restore/backup actions, provider readiness, customer output, and destructive/high-impact action affordances are inspected only.
- **Systems touched**: Spec artifacts only. Runtime systems are read-only targets.
- **Existing pattern(s) to extend**: Product Surface Contract, UI audit route inventory/design coverage/page reports, Filament v5 guidelines, OperationRun UX contract, RBAC/UiEnforcement conventions, customer-output gates, and existing browser harnesses.
- **Shared contract / presenter / builder / renderer to reuse**: N/A - no runtime code.
- **Why the existing shared path is sufficient or insufficient**: Existing contracts define the evaluation lens. The audit determines whether rendered behavior follows them.
- **Allowed deviation and why**: none.
- **Consistency impact**: Findings must use stable severity, category, route, actor, evidence, and remediation-group language.
- **Review focus**: Confirm the audit remains read-only and does not silently become implementation, fixture creation, product design, or broad refactoring.

## OperationRun UX Impact

- **Touches OperationRun start/completion/link UX?**: no runtime change. OperationRun surfaces and proof links 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. Provider readiness, provider-specific diagnostics, managed-environment context, and Microsoft/Graph terminology are inspected only.
- **Boundary classification**: audit target only.
- **Seams affected**: provider connection setup/readiness, required permissions, freshness, tenant/environment context, reports, evidence, and customer-safe output may be inspected.
- **Neutral platform terms preserved or introduced**: no new runtime terms; audit language uses workspace, managed environment, provider, connection, evidence, report, operation, artifact, and customer output.
- **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, UI labels, persistence, routes, or vocabulary are changed.
- **Follow-up path**: provider-boundary issues become bounded findings or follow-up specs only if evidence-backed.

## UI / Surface Guardrail Impact

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

## Decision-First Surface Role

N/A - no surface changed. The audit classifies inspected surfaces by decision role where possible and flags ambiguity.

## Audience-Aware Disclosure

N/A - no disclosure changed. The audit inspects customer/read-only, operator diagnostic, and support/raw evidence layers.

## UI/UX Surface Classification

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

## Operator Surface Contract

N/A - no new or materially changed operator-facing page. The audit checks whether existing pages have clear operator purpose, primary question, next action, technical detail demotion, and audience boundaries.

## Proportionality Review *(mandatory when structural complexity is introduced)*

- **New source of truth?**: no runtime source of truth. The audit report is review evidence only.
- **New persisted entity/table/artifact?**: no application entity/table. A saved audit artifact is allowed only under the active spec directory if the operator explicitly requests it during execution.
- **New abstraction?**: no runtime abstraction.
- **New enum/state/reason family?**: no runtime status family. Severity and readiness labels are report-only.
- **New cross-domain UI framework/taxonomy?**: no runtime framework. Existing Product Surface and UI audit vocabulary is reused.
- **Current operator problem**: Pilot/customer readiness cannot be judged from bounded implementation reports alone.
- **Existing structure is insufficient because**: Specs 400-406 prove slices or conditions, but no current artifact records whole-app browser/runtime readiness after those changes.
- **Narrowest correct implementation**: route/surface inventory, read-only browser walkthrough, critical journey matrix, classified findings, readiness decision, and grouped remediation plan.
- **Ownership cost**: one audit execution and future review of its findings. No recurring runtime maintenance.
- **Alternative intentionally rejected**: immediate remediation or creating new specs before browser evidence exists.
- **Release truth**: current-release customer/pilot readiness gate.

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

- **Test purpose / classification**: Browser audit / manual or automated browser evidence. No application test files are added or changed.
- **Validation lane(s)**: Browser/read-only audit plus read-only route/artisan/log inspection where safe.
- **Why this classification and these lanes are sufficient**: The spec does not change runtime behavior; the value is browser evidence and decision reporting.
- **New or expanded test families**: none in prep. If future execution needs fixture or test creation, stop and update the spec or ask the operator.
- **Fixture/helper/factory/seed/context cost**: none added. Existing fixtures/actors only.
- **Browser scope**: broad application walkthrough with documented omissions where actors, fixtures, or environment services are unavailable.
- **Deployment impact**: none from preparation or audit. The audit may record deployment/readiness conditions but does not change env vars, migrations, queues, scheduler, storage, assets, reverse proxy, or Dokploy config.

## Functional Requirements

- **FR-407-001**: The audit MUST be read-only and MUST NOT intentionally mutate application data, files, tests, code, schema, routes, config, docs outside this spec package, or completed specs.
- **FR-407-002**: The audit MUST record branch, HEAD, dirty state, changed tracked files, untracked files, and `git diff --check` before and after browser work.
- **FR-407-003**: The audit MUST inventory routes, Filament panels, resources, pages, widgets, Livewire components, navigation groups, customer/review routes, system/admin routes, and download/export routes sufficiently to explain coverage.
- **FR-407-004**: The audit MUST cover admin panel shell, system panel shell, workspace/environment context, dashboard/readiness, baseline compare, restore readiness, backups, provider readiness, evidence, OperationRun proof, findings/governance inbox, review packs/customer review workspace, reports/PDF downloads, governance artifact lifecycle, membership/access-scope surfaces if present, navigation, breadcrumbs, tables, filters, and search where reachable.
- **FR-407-005**: The audit MUST use available actor perspectives: workspace admin, limited workspace user, system operator, customer reviewer, unauthorized user, and cross-workspace user where fixtures permit. It MUST identify the existing source for each actor/session used without exposing secrets, and record missing actor sources as limitations.
- **FR-407-006**: If an actor, fixture, route, or service is unavailable, the audit MUST record it as `BLOCKED`, `NOT TESTED`, or `NOT APPLICABLE` with reason, not as proof.
- **FR-407-007**: The audit MUST NOT complete destructive or irreversible actions. It may inspect visibility, disabled state, confirmation presence, copy, authorization boundaries, and direct access behavior without execution.
- **FR-407-008**: The audit MUST record browser console errors, Livewire/Filament errors, HTTP 500/404/403 surprises, network failures, asset failures, modal/action failures, table/filter/search failures, PDF/download failures, and file-not-found symptoms.
- **FR-407-009**: P0/P1 findings MUST include surface, route/page, actor, observed behavior, expected contract, severity, why it matters, evidence reference, and recommended resolution type.
- **FR-407-010**: Findings MUST be classified by severity P0/P1/P2/P3 and by category: runtime defect, UX/productization defect, authorization defect, customer-safe boundary defect, evidence/currentness defect, lifecycle defect, navigation/IA defect, empty/error-state defect, copy/terminology defect, test/proof gap, product decision gap, known deferred item, or duplicate/already covered.
- **FR-407-011**: The audit MUST include a Browser Coverage Matrix with surface, actor, route/page, state tested, result, runtime errors, UX issues, authorization issues, customer-safe issues, severity, and follow-up.
- **FR-407-012**: The audit MUST include a Journey Matrix for admin readiness review, provider readiness review, baseline drift review, evidence/proof review, backup readiness review, restore readiness review, finding/governance triage, review pack/customer review, report/PDF review, system operator review, and unauthorized/cross-workspace blocked access.
- **FR-407-013**: The audit MUST include readiness decisions for controlled pilot, customer-facing hardening, sales/demo use, broader customer claims, production deployment, and next implementation block.
- **FR-407-014**: The audit MUST carry forward Spec 404/405 staging/Dokploy conditions and Spec 406 lifecycle/product-decision conditions honestly; it MUST NOT claim production/staging readiness unless browser/runtime evidence proves it.
- **FR-407-015**: The remediation plan MUST group findings into the fewest coherent follow-up specs or decisions. It MUST NOT create one spec per minor observation.
- **FR-407-016**: The audit MUST distinguish missing fixture/test-data conditions from product empty-state defects and runtime defects.
- **FR-407-017**: The audit MUST verify customer/read-only surfaces do not expose internal-only data, raw payloads, OperationRun internals, raw IDs, source keys, fingerprints, stack traces, private URLs, or system/admin links by default.
- **FR-407-018**: The audit MUST verify evidence/currentness/report/lifecycle claims are not over-stated when data is stale, expired, partial, failed, missing, deleted, or unavailable.
- **FR-407-019**: The audit MUST verify representative authorization boundaries for admin/system/customer planes, workspace isolation, environment isolation, direct URLs, navigation/global search, and download/export access where fixtures permit.
- **FR-407-020**: The audit MUST preserve completed historical specs and their implementation reports, validation results, task completion markers, smoke results, screenshots, and review language.

## Non-Functional Requirements

- **Security**: Do not record secrets, tokens, raw credential payloads, sensitive provider payloads, private signed URLs, customer data, or stack traces in the final report.
- **Reliability**: Audit conclusions must be evidence-backed and must distinguish observed failures from unavailable fixtures/services.
- **Performance**: Browser inspection must avoid load/performance testing and avoid repeated polling beyond what is needed to observe the visible state.
- **Auditability**: Every P0/P1 finding must be reproducible enough for the next implementation agent to locate the route/surface and expected contract.
- **Product Safety**: The audit must not decide missing product questions silently; it must mark them as product decision gaps.
- **Test Governance**: No new test lane, fixture family, browser harness, seed, factory, or session harness is added by this spec. Ordinary browser login/session state from the existing environment may be used and recorded.

## User Stories And Independent Tests

### User Story 1 - Product owner receives a readiness decision (Priority: P1)

As the product owner, I need a browser-evidence-backed `PASS`, `PASS WITH CONDITIONS`, or `FAIL` result so I can decide whether to proceed to controlled pilot, customer-facing hardening, or remediation.

**Independent Test**: The final report includes Candidate Gate Result, Browser Coverage Matrix, Journey Matrix, Findings, Readiness Decision, Remediation Plan, commands run, dirty state, and recommended next action.

### User Story 2 - Operator workflows are walked end-to-end (Priority: P1)

As a workspace operator, I need critical admin workflows inspected through the browser so hidden Livewire/Filament/runtime, navigation, state, or action-safety issues are visible before pilot.

**Independent Test**: The Journey Matrix records completion/confidence for readiness, provider, baseline, evidence, backup, restore, finding/governance, review/report, and customer output journeys.

### User Story 3 - Customer and boundary safety are verified (Priority: P1)

As a customer reviewer or limited actor, I need customer-safe and unauthorized paths checked so the app does not leak internal data or cross-workspace/system/admin context.

**Independent Test**: The audit records representative customer-review, unauthorized, cross-workspace, system/admin, navigation/global search, and download/export boundary results or explains missing fixture blockers.

### User Story 4 - Findings become bounded remediation work (Priority: P2)

As the next implementation agent, I need findings grouped by product risk and root cause so remediation can be implemented in small follow-up specs instead of a broad rewrite.

**Independent Test**: The Remediation Plan groups P0/P1 and related P2 findings into coherent follow-ups and explicitly marks isolated minor issues, known deferred items, and duplicates that should not become specs.

## Required Audit Report Structure

The final report MUST include these sections:

- A. Candidate Gate Result
- B. Scope and Environment
- C. Dirty State
- D. Executive Summary
- E. Browser Coverage Matrix
- F. Journey Matrix
- G. Findings
- H. Runtime Error Log
- I. Authorization / Boundary Results
- J. Evidence / Currentness / Proof Results
- K. Governance Artifact Lifecycle Results
- L. UX / Productization Results
- M. Readiness Decision
- N. Remediation Plan
- O. Validation / Audit Commands
- P. Recommended Next Step

## Severity Rules

- **P0 - Blocker**: unsafe, misleading, or unusable for pilot, including unauthorized restricted data access, customer-facing internal leakage, unsafe destructive execution, false currentness/evidence/customer-safe claims, cross-workspace exposure, download authorization bypass, critical page 500s, or deleted/missing artifact downloadable as valid proof.
- **P1 - High**: controlled pilot or customer-hardening should not proceed without resolution or explicit exclusion, including critical runtime errors, high-risk misleading state, broken critical journey, major navigation ambiguity, missing critical browser proof, or important proof link failures.
- **P2 - Medium**: productization issues to address before broader rollout, including inconsistent terminology, confusing lower-risk empty states, non-critical action placement, or internal-only proof links that are not harmful.
- **P3 - Low**: minor polish such as low-risk copy, spacing, or dev-only naming.

## Acceptance Criteria

- **AC-407-001**: Audit was read-only and no application implementation occurred.
- **AC-407-002**: Dirty state before/after is recorded.
- **AC-407-003**: Admin panel, system panel, customer/review path where available, workspace/environment context, provider, baseline, restore, backup, evidence, OperationRun, findings, governance, review pack, report/PDF, and artifact lifecycle surfaces are covered or explicitly marked unavailable.
- **AC-407-004**: At least one unauthorized/cross-workspace boundary path is audited where fixtures permit.
- **AC-407-005**: Runtime/console/Livewire/Filament errors are recorded.
- **AC-407-006**: Browser Coverage Matrix and Journey Matrix are included.
- **AC-407-007**: Findings are classified by severity and defect category.
- **AC-407-008**: Readiness Decision table is included.
- **AC-407-009**: Remediation Plan groups findings into the fewest coherent follow-ups.
- **AC-407-010**: The report clearly states whether TenantPilot can proceed to controlled pilot, customer-facing hardening, sales/demo use, broader customer claims, production deployment, and the next implementation block.

## Success Criteria

- **SC-407-001**: The operator can decide whether to proceed to pilot/customer hardening or remediation without asking the implementation agent to infer missing readiness facts.
- **SC-407-002**: No hidden P0/P1 customer-readiness risk remains unclassified in the audited coverage.
- **SC-407-003**: All limitations are explicit, including missing actors, missing fixtures, unavailable services, external staging/Dokploy gaps, and not-tested surfaces.
- **SC-407-004**: Follow-up work is grouped into a small, coherent remediation path.

## Edge Cases

- Actor accounts or fixtures are unavailable.
- A route exists but has no data.
- A page depends on external provider state or renderer services unavailable in local/dev.
- A destructive action can be inspected only up to confirmation.
- Browser environment cannot authenticate as a specific role.
- A page returns 404/403 intentionally for isolation.
- Existing Spec 404/405 external staging conditions cannot be resolved in local browser audit.
- Existing Spec 406 product-decision residuals appear as visible states.

## Out Of Scope

- Fixes, refactors, UI redesign, copywriting, tests, migrations, seeders, factories, routes, Filament resources, Livewire components, policies, commands, views, config, docs outside this spec package, lock files, generated assets, database schema, new fixtures, new pages, new customer outputs, new provider integrations, new report templates, governance lifecycle behavior changes, commercial lifecycle, billing, legal/compliance review, penetration testing, and load/performance testing beyond visible runtime symptoms.

## Assumptions

- The browser audit runs against a local/dev or explicitly approved non-production environment.
- Existing seed/demo/test actors and fixtures are sufficient for representative coverage, but gaps are recorded if not.
- Specs 404/405 external conditions and Spec 406 lifecycle residuals are audit inputs, not automatic blockers unless visible/runtime evidence makes them pilot blockers.
- Saved report output is response-only unless the operator explicitly asks for a spec-local audit artifact.

## Risks

- Missing fixtures could reduce actor or journey confidence.
- Browser auth/setup may block system or customer perspectives.
- Broad coverage could become noisy; P0/P1 findings must stay evidence-backed and P2/P3 observations must be grouped.
- External staging/Dokploy validation may remain unavailable and must not be converted into false production readiness.

## Open Questions

- None blocking preparation. During audit execution, record unavailable actors, fixtures, services, or routes as limitations instead of inventing proof.

## Follow-up Spec Candidates

Follow-up specs must be created only after the audit report identifies evidence-backed findings. Potential groups include:

- Authorization/boundary remediation.
- Customer-safe output remediation.
- Evidence/currentness remediation.
- Critical runtime crash remediation.
- Navigation/surface reduction remediation.
- Report/PDF remediation.
- Governance lifecycle remediation.
- UX/productization polish.