TenantAtlas/specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/spec.md

Feature Specification: Spec 377 - Post-Productization Browser Re-Audit and Closeout Gate v1

Feature Branch: 377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate Created: 2026-06-13 Status: Draft / Ready for implementation preparation review Input: User-provided Spec 377 draft plus repo-verified recommendations from Specs 375 and 376.

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

• Problem: The UI Signal-to-Noise / Productization program has completed multiple focused follow-up specs, but the repo has no final browser-based closeout package that proves whether the main productization goals are now met.
• Today's failure: Without a closeout audit, operators and reviewers cannot distinguish "program is done", "program is done with narrow follow-ups", and "core UI productization remains open". Previously blocked Evidence/System/Permission surfaces could also remain unverified despite Spec 376.
• User-visible improvement: The implementation will produce a final, evidence-backed decision for the productization program, with screenshots, scorecards, guard status, fixture status, and a constrained follow-up roadmap.
• Smallest enterprise-capable version: Read-mostly browser re-audit of the named core surfaces, comparison against Spec 368, Spec 375 guard check, Spec 376 fixture-status check, and a closeout decision artifact.
• Explicit non-goals: No UI refactor, no route changes, no fixture creation, no migrations, no model/service/policy/job changes, no broad route crawl, no visual-regression framework, no accessibility or performance audit.
• Permanent complexity imported: Audit artifacts, screenshots, scorecard CSVs, validation notes, and a follow-up roadmap inside this spec package only. No runtime complexity, persisted truth, status families, services, or abstractions.
• Why now: Spec 375 installed the UI bloat guard, and Spec 376 explicitly recommends Spec 377 after closing fixture access for Evidence/System/provider-adjacent surfaces.
• Why not local: A local note or one-off browser pass would not produce durable repo evidence, source classification, score comparison, guard status, fixture status, and an attributable closeout decision.
• Approval class: Core Enterprise.
• Red flags triggered: Many surfaces and scoring axes. Defense: this is an audit/closeout package, not a broad refactor or new framework; it consumes existing score semantics from Spec 368 and existing productization artifacts from Specs 370-376.
• Score: Nutzen: 2 | Dringlichkeit: 2 | Scope: 2 | Komplexitaet: 2 | Produktnaehe: 2 | Wiederverwendung: 2 | Gesamt: 12/12
• Decision: approve.

Problem Statement

Specs 368 and 370-376 created a UI Signal-to-Noise / Productization program with source audits, productization passes, guardrails, and fixture coverage. The repo still needs one final browser-based closeout gate that proves whether the central UI surfaces are now calmer, more decision-first, and browser-auditable, or whether the program remains open.

Business / Product Value

Spec 377 prevents a false productization claim. It gives product, engineering, and review stakeholders a durable closeout decision backed by browser evidence, scorecards, guard status, fixture status, and a bounded follow-up roadmap. This helps TenantPilot present as an enterprise SaaS rather than an admin database frontend.

Primary Users / Operators

• Product reviewer deciding whether the UI Signal-to-Noise program can close.
• Maintainer validating that Specs 370-376 produced the intended productization outcome.
• MSP/operator representative reviewing whether core operator and customer/auditor surfaces are decision-first enough for sellable workflows.
• Future implementation agent that needs a bounded audit task list without permission to refactor runtime UI.

Spec Scope Fields (mandatory)

• Scope: canonical-view / audit-only.
• Primary Routes: Existing /admin, /admin/..., /system, and fixture-backed browser URLs needed to inspect the surfaces listed in FR-003. The implementation must record the exact URLs tested in artifacts/browser-verification-report.md.
• Data Ownership: No application data ownership changes. Audit artifacts are spec-owned documentation under specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/.
• RBAC: Browser verification must use existing repo-approved browser/auth fixtures and must not weaken authorization. Non-member and cross-plane semantics remain unchanged. Blocked pages must be documented rather than bypassed.

For canonical-view specs:

• Default filter behavior when tenant-context is active: The audit observes existing behavior only. Any active workspace/environment/tenant filter used for a screenshot must be recorded with the surface entry.
• Explicit entitlement checks preventing cross-tenant leakage: Existing policies and browser fixtures remain the authority. The audit must not introduce bypass routes, test-only runtime changes, or unscoped direct access.

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

This spec audits existing reachable UI and writes spec-local evidence. It does not materially change the UI.

UI/Productization Coverage (mandatory when UI Surface Impact is not "No UI surface impact"; otherwise write N/A - no reachable UI surface impact plus rationale)

N/A - no reachable UI surface impact. The implementation must still create audit artifacts for the existing surfaces under artifacts/, but no route inventory, design coverage matrix, page report, or unresolved-page artifact is changed unless the implementation first updates this spec and plan.

Cross-Cutting / Shared Pattern Reuse (mandatory when the feature touches notifications, status messaging, action links, header actions, dashboard signals/cards, alerts, navigation entry points, evidence/report viewers, or any other existing shared operator interaction family; otherwise write N/A - no shared interaction family touched)

• Cross-cutting feature?: no runtime cross-cutting change.
• Interaction class(es): existing reports/evidence/view surfaces are audited only.
• Systems touched: Spec artifacts only.
• Existing pattern(s) to extend: Spec 368 scoring model, Spec 370 surface contract, Spec 375 guard reporting, Spec 376 fixture reporting.
• Shared contract / presenter / builder / renderer to reuse: N/A - no runtime code.
• Why the existing shared path is sufficient or insufficient: Existing artifacts are sufficient inputs for a report-only closeout gate.
• Allowed deviation and why: none.
• Consistency impact: Scoring, severity, verification classes, and closeout status must stay consistent across the generated artifacts.
• Review focus: Confirm no runtime shared UI path is edited and all claims are evidence-classified.

OperationRun UX Impact (mandatory when the feature creates, queues, deduplicates, resumes, blocks, completes, or deep-links to an OperationRun; otherwise write N/A - no OperationRun start or link semantics touched)

• Touches OperationRun start/completion/link UX?: no.
• 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.

The OperationRun detail view is an audit target only.

Provider Boundary / Platform Core Check (mandatory when the feature changes shared provider/platform seams, identity scope, governed-subject taxonomy, compare strategy selection, provider connection descriptors, or operator vocabulary that may leak provider-specific semantics into platform-core truth; otherwise write N/A - no shared provider/platform boundary touched)

• Shared provider/platform boundary touched?: no runtime seam change.
• Boundary classification: N/A.
• Seams affected: Existing Provider Connections and Required Permissions surfaces are audited only.
• Neutral platform terms preserved or introduced: Existing terms are observed; no new runtime vocabulary is introduced.
• Provider-specific semantics retained and why: N/A.
• Why this does not deepen provider coupling accidentally: No code, labels, routes, contracts, persistence, or UI vocabulary are changed.
• Follow-up path: If provider-readiness or permission surfaces still fail closeout targets, record a separate follow-up in artifacts/follow-up-roadmap.md.

UI / Surface Guardrail Impact (mandatory when operator-facing surfaces are changed; otherwise write N/A)

N/A - no operator-facing surface change. This spec is a guardrail evaluation and evidence package. It audits existing operator/customer/system surfaces and must not create runtime UI drift.

Decision-First Surface Role (mandatory when operator-facing surfaces are changed)

N/A - no operator-facing surface change. The implementation must score existing surfaces against the decision-first/productization expectations from Specs 368 and 370.

Audience-Aware Disclosure (mandatory when operator-facing surfaces are changed)

N/A - no operator-facing surface change. Customer/auditor surfaces remain strict audit targets; any unsafe default-visible content becomes a finding, not an in-scope fix.

UI/UX Surface Classification (mandatory when operator-facing surfaces are changed)

N/A - no operator-facing surface change. Surface classification is consumed from existing UI audit artifacts and recorded in the scorecard.

Operator Surface Contract (mandatory when operator-facing surfaces are changed)

N/A - no new or materially refactored operator-facing page. The audit must compare existing pages against the applicable surface contracts from prior specs.

Proportionality Review (mandatory when structural complexity is introduced)

• New source of truth?: no runtime or persisted source of truth.
• New persisted entity/table/artifact?: no application entity/table; yes, spec-local audit artifacts that are historical evidence for this closeout.
• New abstraction?: no.
• New enum/state/reason family?: no runtime family. Verification classes and closeout statuses are report-only labels derived from the user-provided draft and prior audit language.
• New cross-domain UI framework/taxonomy?: no.
• Current operator problem: Productization closeout is currently unverifiable and could falsely appear complete or remain open indefinitely.
• Existing structure is insufficient because: Specs 370-376 each prove local slices; none creates the final before/after, guard/fixture, score, and closeout decision package.
• Narrowest correct implementation: A read-mostly browser audit with spec-local CSV/Markdown/screenshot artifacts and no application code changes.
• Ownership cost: One browser lane execution plus durable audit artifacts. No recurring runtime maintenance unless follow-up specs are explicitly selected later.
• Alternative intentionally rejected: More productization refactors, fixture work, or guard expansion before a final audit. Those would hide whether the already planned program is closeable.
• Release truth: Current-release truth; this determines whether the UI Signal-to-Noise program can close.

Compatibility posture

This feature assumes a pre-production environment. Backward compatibility, legacy aliases, migration shims, historical fixtures, and compatibility-specific tests are out of scope.

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

• Test purpose / classification: Browser and Heavy-Governance for audit proof; N/A for runtime behavior changes.
• Validation lane(s): browser, heavy-governance/reporting, shell validation.
• Why this classification and these lanes are sufficient: The feature's value is browser-observed productization evidence and guard/fixture status, not unit behavior or application mutation.
• New or expanded test families: none required. Existing browser smokes and Spec 375 guard may be run when available.
• Fixture / helper cost impact: must reuse existing fixtures from Specs 371-376. No new fixtures unless this spec is updated.
• Heavy-family visibility / justification: The browser cost is the feature itself and is explicit in the spec name, tasks, and validation report.
• Special surface test profile: manual-smoke / browser closeout audit.
• Standard-native relief or required special coverage: N/A - audit-only.
• Reviewer handoff: Reviewers must confirm that browser evidence exists, blocked states are exact, no runtime files changed, score/closeout claims are evidence-classified, and no completed specs were rewritten.
• Budget / baseline / trend impact: Browser lane cost only during closeout. No recurring CI broadening unless the follow-up roadmap separately proposes it.
• Escalation needed: document-in-feature for closeout limitations; follow-up-spec only for remaining productization or fixture gaps.
• Active feature PR close-out entry: Smoke Coverage / Guardrail / Fixture Coverage.
• Planned validation commands:
  • git status --short --branch
  • git diff --name-only
  • git diff --stat
  • git rev-parse --short HEAD
  • git diff --check
  • Run Spec 375 guard in warn mode if repo-available.
  • Browser verify the required surfaces at 1440x1000 and capture screenshots.
  • Run targeted existing browser smoke filters only if cheap and already present.

User Scenarios & Testing (mandatory)

User Story 1 - Establish closeout readiness from source artifacts (Priority: P1)

As a product reviewer, I want Specs 368 and 370-376 summarized with artifact availability and missing evidence, so that the final audit starts from repo truth instead of assumptions.

Why this priority: Without source readiness, the closeout decision could claim unavailable or stale proof.

Independent Test: Read artifacts/source-program-summary.md and verify each required predecessor spec is classified as available, not available, completed context, or blocker.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given the repo contains Specs 368 and 370-376, When the source summary is generated, Then it lists materialized artifacts, missing artifacts, browser evidence, guard status inputs, and fixture coverage inputs.
2. Given a required predecessor artifact is missing, When the source summary is generated, Then it records not available and constrains the closeout decision instead of inventing proof.

---

User Story 2 - Browser re-audit core productization surfaces (Priority: P1)

As a product reviewer, I want the required operator, customer/auditor, diagnostic, provider, evidence, permission, and system surfaces browser-opened and screenshot-captured, so that productization quality is judged from the current UI.

Why this priority: Browser evidence is the main proof this closeout gate provides.

Independent Test: Open artifacts/browser-verification-report.md, artifacts/screenshot-index.md, and the screenshot directory, then verify each required surface is reachable with a screenshot or blocked with an exact reason.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given a required surface is reachable, When the audit runs, Then a screenshot is captured under artifacts/screenshots/ and the report records URL, viewport, fixture/auth source, and notes.
2. Given a required surface is blocked, When the audit runs, Then the report records the exact blocked reason, a blocked screenshot if possible, and no fabricated score.

---

User Story 3 - Score and decide program closeout (Priority: P2)

As a product owner, I want scorecards, before/after comparison, guard status, fixture status, and a final closeout decision, so that the UI Signal-to-Noise program can be closed or kept open with clear evidence.

Why this priority: The program decision is the outcome of the spec.

Independent Test: Inspect surface-re-audit-scorecard.csv, before-after-score-comparison.csv, guard-status-report.md, fixture-coverage-status.md, and closeout-decision.md.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given all reachable core surfaces meet closeout targets with no blocking P0/P1 findings, When the decision is written, Then closed is allowed.
2. Given core goals are met but some non-core surfaces, manual-review guard warnings, or fixture limitations remain, When the decision is written, Then closed-with-follow-up is used with exact follow-ups.
3. Given any reachable core P1, customer/auditor safety P1, P0, unavailable guard, or undocumented blocked critical surface remains, When the decision is written, Then open or a constrained closed-with-follow-up is used according to the decision rules.

---

User Story 4 - Preserve no-refactor discipline and produce follow-up roadmap (Priority: P3)

As a maintainer, I want remaining gaps recorded as separate follow-up candidates without runtime changes, so that a closeout audit does not silently become another refactor pass.

Why this priority: The program can only close cleanly if audit findings are separated from implementation work.

Independent Test: Verify artifacts/validation-report.md, artifacts/remaining-findings.md, and artifacts/follow-up-roadmap.md exist, runtime files are unchanged, and every remaining issue has a closeout impact.

Acceptance Scenarios:

1. Given the audit finds UI bloat or productization drift, When the implementation records findings, Then no application code is changed and follow-ups are separated by must-fix, separate roadmap follow-up, optional polish, and not needed.
2. Given validation runs, When the final report is written, Then it records branch, HEAD, dirty state before/after, commands, browser results, guard result, runtime-file status, limitations, and recommended next step.

Edge Cases

• A predecessor artifact listed by the draft is missing or renamed.
• The app or browser harness is unavailable.
• Authentication or fixture setup allows some admin surfaces but not system surfaces.
• A surface is reachable but has stale or missing seed data.
• Spec 375 guard is absent, renamed, or fails in warn mode.
• Spec 376 fixture coverage exists but a formerly blocked surface remains inaccessible.
• Scorecard averages improve while a single customer/auditor P1 remains.
• A browser route displays a page but with JS console/runtime errors.
• A screenshot can be captured but the surface cannot be honestly scored.

Requirements (mandatory)

Functional Requirements

• FR-001: The implementation MUST create artifacts/source-program-summary.md summarizing Specs 368 and 370-376, including materialized artifacts, missing artifacts, before/after evidence, fixture coverage, guard status inputs, and whether closeout can proceed.
• FR-002: The implementation MUST record repo safety before changes in artifacts/validation-report.md, including branch, HEAD, dirty state, git diff --name-only, and git diff --stat.
• FR-003: The implementation MUST browser-audit these required surfaces when repo/fixture access allows: Environment Dashboard, Operations Hub, OperationRun View, Backup Set View, Restore Run View, Baseline Profile View, Customer Review Workspace, Environment Review View, Review Pack View, Stored Report View, Evidence Snapshot View, Provider Connections List, Provider Connection Detail, Environment Diagnostics / Repair Diagnostics, Support Diagnostics Modal, Required Permissions, System Dashboard, and System Operations.
• FR-004: The implementation MUST capture new screenshots for all reachable required surfaces under artifacts/screenshots/, using the user-provided naming intent where possible.
• FR-005: The implementation MUST document blocked surfaces with exact blocked reason, verification class, attempted URL, fixture/auth source, and blocked screenshot when possible.
• FR-006: The implementation MUST create artifacts/screenshot-index.md listing surface, screenshot path, reachability, blocked reason, viewport, source fixture, and notes.
• FR-007: The implementation MUST create artifacts/browser-verification-report.md listing URLs tested, auth/fixture used, screenshots, reachable pages, blocked pages, timeouts/errors, and browser limitations.
• FR-008: The implementation MUST create artifacts/surface-re-audit-scorecard.csv with the scoring columns from the user draft, including verification class and closeout status.
• FR-009: The implementation MUST create artifacts/before-after-score-comparison.csv comparing Spec 368 scores and screenshots to the post-productization audit where source evidence exists.
• FR-010: The implementation MUST use the Spec 368 scoring model from 0 to 5 and MUST avoid scoring blocked or not-assessable pages as if they were successfully reviewed.
• FR-011: The implementation MUST create artifacts/guard-status-report.md documenting the Spec 375 guard command/test used, scan result, blocking findings, warnings/manual-review findings, and CI suitability.
• FR-012: The implementation MUST create artifacts/fixture-coverage-status.md summarizing Spec 376 coverage, previously blocked surfaces, current reachability, remaining blockers, and final-audit sufficiency.
• FR-013: The implementation MUST create artifacts/remaining-findings.md with finding ID, severity, surface, verification level, problem, why it matters, recommended follow-up, and closeout impact.
• FR-014: The implementation MUST create artifacts/closeout-decision.md declaring exactly one final decision: closed, closed-with-follow-up, or open.
• FR-015: The implementation MUST create artifacts/follow-up-roadmap.md separating must-fix before close, separate roadmap follow-up, optional polish, and not needed.
• FR-016: All statements in generated artifacts MUST use verification classes: repo-verified, browser-verified, derived from existing implementation, foundation-real, plausible, not verified, not available, or deferred.
• FR-017: Closeout statuses MUST use only closed, closed-with-follow-up, open, blocked, or not-applicable.
• FR-018: The implementation MUST not edit application/runtime files unless this spec and plan are first updated to document an explicit, bounded report/test-harness correction.
• FR-019: The implementation MUST not rewrite, normalize, or remove closeout, validation, completed task markers, smoke results, or implementation history from completed specs.
• FR-020: The implementation MUST run git diff --check and record the result in artifacts/validation-report.md.

Non-Functional Requirements

• NFR-001: The audit must be reproducible from repo artifacts, browser evidence, and recorded commands.
• NFR-002: The report must be decision-first: it must identify the closeout decision, evidence, remaining risk, and next action without requiring readers to inspect every screenshot manually.
• NFR-003: Browser evidence must be honest about limitations; unavailable fixtures, blocked auth, timeouts, stale data, and not-assessable states must not be hidden.
• NFR-004: The implementation must minimize new browser/test cost and reuse existing fixtures/harnesses from Specs 371-376 where possible.
• NFR-005: The generated artifacts must avoid secrets, tokens, raw credentials, or sensitive tenant payloads.

UX / Productization Requirements

• UX-001: The audit MUST evaluate whether default-visible content emphasizes outcome, reason, impact, next action, evidence, and diagnostics on demand.
• UX-002: The audit MUST treat repeated lifecycle/status blocks, zero metric card spam, raw IDs in customer/auditor defaults, provider/debug/internal terminology, unclear diagnostic entrypoints, unguided technical pages, and button floods as score-relevant issues.
• UX-003: The audit MUST keep customer/auditor surfaces stricter than ordinary operator surfaces for raw/support evidence, internal reason families, fingerprints, debug semantics, and diagnostics.
• UX-004: The audit MUST preserve technical/evidence depth as available-on-demand rather than recommending removal of proof.

RBAC / Security Requirements

• SEC-001: Existing authorization behavior must remain unchanged.
• SEC-002: The audit must not add auth bypasses, fixture routes, or smoke-login endpoints.
• SEC-003: Screenshots and notes must not expose secrets, raw credential payloads, access tokens, or sensitive raw provider payloads.
• SEC-004: Cross-plane /admin and /system surfaces must be verified with the existing correct guard/user model or documented as blocked.

Auditability / Observability Requirements

• AUD-001: validation-report.md must contain branch, HEAD, dirty state before/after, commands run, browser command/results, guard result, tests run if any, git diff --check, runtime files changed yes/no, known limitations, and recommended next spec if any.
• AUD-002: closeout-decision.md must state the rationale, targets met, targets missed, P0/P1 findings, blocked surfaces, guard status, fixture coverage status, remaining follow-ups, and recommendation.
• AUD-003: Every finding must state closeout impact so reviewers can see whether the program is closed, closed with follow-ups, or open.

Data / Truth-Source Requirements

• DATA-001: Spec 368 audit artifacts are the before-audit truth where available.
• DATA-002: Specs 370-376 artifacts are source inputs and completed context only.
• DATA-003: Browser-captured evidence from Spec 377 is the after-audit truth for reachable pages.
• DATA-004: Generated scorecards are derived audit artifacts, not application truth.
• DATA-005: Missing source artifacts must be recorded as not available.

UI Action Matrix (mandatory when Filament is changed)

N/A - no Filament Resource, RelationManager, Page, panel provider, action, table, form, modal, or widget is changed by this spec.

Acceptance Criteria

• AC-001: source-program-summary.md exists and summarizes Specs 368 and 370-376, including missing artifacts.
• AC-002: All required surfaces are browser-audited or blocked with exact reasons.
• AC-003: Reachable required surfaces have screenshots under artifacts/screenshots/.
• AC-004: surface-re-audit-scorecard.csv and before-after-score-comparison.csv exist.
• AC-005: closeout-decision.md declares exactly one of closed, closed-with-follow-up, or open with rationale.
• AC-006: Closeout is not closed if a P0, customer/auditor safety P1, or core reachable P1 remains.
• AC-007: Spec 375 guard status is checked and documented.
• AC-008: Spec 376 fixture coverage status is checked and documented.
• AC-009: No runtime UI refactor is performed.
• AC-010: git diff --check passes after artifact generation.
• AC-011: follow-up-roadmap.md separates must-fix, separate roadmap follow-up, optional polish, and not-needed items.

Key Entities (include if feature involves data)

• Surface Audit Entry: A spec-local row describing one audited surface, its route/path, reachability, verification class, scores, severity, problem, and closeout status.
• Browser Screenshot Evidence: A spec-local screenshot plus screenshot-index entry proving reachable or blocked state at the required viewport.
• Closeout Decision: A spec-local decision artifact declaring closed, closed-with-follow-up, or open with rationale and constraints.
• Remaining Finding: A spec-local finding that captures a residual productization gap and its closeout impact.

Success Criteria (mandatory)

Measurable Outcomes

• SC-001: 100% of required surfaces are represented in surface-re-audit-scorecard.csv with either browser evidence or an exact blocked/not-available reason.
• SC-002: 100% of reachable audited surfaces have a screenshot entry and browser-verification entry.
• SC-003: The final closeout decision is explainable from closeout-decision.md without reading all raw screenshots.
• SC-004: The implementation changes no application/runtime files.
• SC-005: git diff --check passes after artifact generation.
• SC-006: Every remaining P0/P1 or blocked critical surface is reflected in remaining-findings.md and follow-up-roadmap.md.

Out of Scope

• Runtime UI refactors.
• New UX patterns or redesigns.
• New product features.
• Models, migrations, services, jobs, policies, commands, routes, views, Filament resources, Livewire components, or tests, except a tiny report/test-harness correction only after explicit spec/plan update.
• New auth flows or browser fixtures.
• System/Evidence fixture creation if Spec 376 did not already provide it.
• Full 100+ route re-audit.
• Pixel-level screenshot diffing.
• Accessibility audit.
• Performance audit.
• Broad CI strictness expansion for the UI bloat guard.

Program-Level Checks

The implementation must report:

• Spec 370 contract compliance.
• Spec 371 operator improvements.
• Spec 372 customer/auditor safety.
• Spec 373 diagnostic guidance.
• Spec 374 diagnostic entrypoint clarity.
• Spec 375 UI bloat guard availability and scan result.
• Spec 376 fixture coverage result.

Required Artifacts

The implementation must create these files:

specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/artifacts/source-program-summary.md
specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/artifacts/surface-re-audit-scorecard.csv
specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/artifacts/before-after-score-comparison.csv
specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/artifacts/screenshot-index.md
specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/artifacts/closeout-decision.md
specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/artifacts/remaining-findings.md
specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/artifacts/guard-status-report.md
specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/artifacts/fixture-coverage-status.md
specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/artifacts/browser-verification-report.md
specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/artifacts/validation-report.md
specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/artifacts/follow-up-roadmap.md
specs/377-post-productization-browser-reaudit-closeout-gate/artifacts/screenshots/

Assumptions

• Existing browser/auth fixtures from Specs 371-376 are sufficient for at least the core admin surfaces.
• Spec 375 guard can be run in warn mode or an equivalent repo-real guard/test can be identified.
• Spec 376 fixture coverage is the expected source for formerly blocked Evidence/System/Permission/Provider detail surfaces.
• The implementation environment can open the local Laravel/Filament app with the project browser tooling.
• No application code changes are needed to produce the audit.

Risks

• Browser fixture instability could block some surfaces.
• Guard command naming may differ from the candidate draft.
• Source artifacts may be missing or use different filenames.
• Closeout scoring could become subjective if evidence classes and score targets are not applied consistently.
• The implementation loop could be tempted to fix UI issues instead of recording follow-ups.

Open Questions

None blocking preparation. If the browser harness or Spec 375 guard is unavailable during implementation, record the limitation and constrain the closeout decision.

Follow-up Spec Candidates

Follow-ups are intentionally not in scope until the audit proves they are still needed:

• Provider/Permission diagnostic productization if provider-readiness or required-permission surfaces still miss target after fixture-backed audit.
• Evidence/System fixture hardening if Spec 376 coverage remains insufficient.
• UI bloat guard CI strictness expansion if warn-mode output is useful but not ready for enforcement.
• Narrow productization polish for any core surface with confirmed P1/P2 closeout impact.