TenantAtlas/specs/166-finding-governance-health/checklists/requirements.md
ahmido 55aef627aa feat: harden finding governance health surfaces (#197)
## Summary
- harden findings and finding-exception Filament surfaces so workflow state, governance validity, overdue urgency, and next action are operator-first
- add tenant stats widgets, segmented tabs, richer governance warnings, and baseline/dashboard attention propagation for overdue and lapsed governance states
- add Spec 166 artifacts plus regression coverage for findings, badges, baseline summaries, tenantless operation viewer behavior, and critical table standards

## Verification
- `vendor/bin/sail bin pint --dirty --format agent`
- `vendor/bin/sail artisan test --compact`

## Filament Notes
- Livewire v4.0+ compliance: yes, implementation stays on Filament v5 / Livewire v4 APIs only
- Provider registration: unchanged, Laravel 12 panel/provider registration remains in `bootstrap/providers.php`
- Global search: unchanged in this slice; `FindingExceptionResource` stays not globally searchable, no new globally searchable resource was introduced
- Destructive actions: existing revoke/reject/approve/renew/workflow mutations remain capability-gated and confirmation-gated where already defined
- Asset strategy: no new assets added; existing deploy process remains unchanged, including `php artisan filament:assets` when registered assets are used
- Testing plan delivered: findings list/detail, exception register, dashboard attention, baseline summary, badge semantics, and tenantless operation viewer coverage

Co-authored-by: Ahmed Darrazi <ahmed.darrazi@live.de>
Reviewed-on: #197
2026-03-28 10:11:12 +00:00

1.9 KiB

Specification Quality Checklist: Finding Governance Health & Resolution Semantics Surface Hardening

Purpose: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning
Created: 2026-03-27
Feature: spec.md

Content Quality

  • No code-level implementation mechanics (new classes, schema, jobs, or algorithms) are prescribed
  • Focused on user value and business needs
  • Written for product, design, and implementation stakeholders in repo-native spec language
  • All mandatory sections completed

Requirement Completeness

  • No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain
  • Requirements are testable and unambiguous
  • Success criteria are measurable
  • Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details)
  • All acceptance scenarios are defined
  • Edge cases are identified
  • Scope is clearly bounded
  • Dependencies and assumptions identified

Feature Readiness

  • All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria
  • User scenarios cover primary flows
  • Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria
  • No code-level implementation mechanics leak into the specification beyond required route, RBAC, operator-surface contract detail, and UI Action Matrix location references

Notes

  • Validation pass 1 completed against the finished spec.
  • No open clarification markers remain.
  • Proportionality review completed: the spec explicitly records that it adds no new source of truth, persistence, abstraction, state family, or cross-domain taxonomy.
  • The spec intentionally references existing route surfaces and shared semantic primitives because this repo's spec template requires operator-surface and constitution alignment details; it does not prescribe implementation mechanics.