Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/field-guides/supabase-field-guide/prerequisites/

field guide / candidate

# Supabase field guide — prerequisites

The distinct prerequisites record for Supabase field guide. This page is proposal-only.

Status: **proposed**Lifecycle: **candidate**

## Record status

**Record ID**: field-guide:supabase-field-guide

**Parent lifecycle**: candidate

**Page lane**: plan

**Lane lifecycle**: proposed

**Owner**: Stan

**Owner role**: Not separately recorded

**Owner status**: Not separately recorded

**Qualification result**: NOT RUN · held for evidence and human review

**Working browser surface:** [Field guides — documentation](<https://guthlabs.ai/docs/field-guides/>) — Inspect the guide and persist local checkpoints. This route is local-only; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, deployment, and production effects remain held.

## Entry evidence and required records

Before the procedure starts, an operator must identify the source, owner, scope, and required records below. Missing evidence holds the guide.

- field-guide:supabase-field-guide:plan

- source-bound evidence notes with source locators and SHA-256 where available

- architecture review record

- security review record

- operations and incident review record

- receipt-backed handoff record

- approval record marked Needs review, Approved, or Held

## Intended operators and ownership

- Stan

- Security engineering

- Architecture and implementation

- SRE and incident command

- Fleet operations

- Receipt-backed handoffs

Being listed as an intended operator does not grant execution or publication authority.

## Conditions that hold the guide before entry

- A named Supabase surface may be mistaken for a connected provider feature.

- Prototype or indexed routes may be mistaken for production behavior.

- Unverified credentials, database authority, customer data, publication, or deployment may be inferred from architecture language.

- PointGuard may be incorrectly treated as the canonical execution or record owner.

- Missing provenance, source hashes, or receipts may make later review non-reproducible.

- Relative deadlines may be misread as committed calendar dates if no target date is supplied.

- Security, incident, or operational conclusions may be overstated when the supplied source record contains no implementation evidence.

- Local drafts, approvals, or schedule entries may be mistaken for external side effects.

## Sources and evidence

These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment.

- `source_record:field-guide:supabase-field-guide`

- `agents/index.html#stan`

- `field-guide:supabase-field-guide:plan`

- `Observed native contract: project_and_field_guide_collections`

- `Observed native contract: deadlines`

- `Observed native contract: records`

- `Observed native contract: pointguard`

- `Observed app routes supplied in the source context`