App feature build — qualification

Record status

Record ID

project:app-feature-build

Parent lifecycle

candidate

Page lane

qualification

Lane lifecycle

proposed

Owner

Not separately recorded

Owner role

Not separately recorded

Owner status

Not separately recorded

Qualification result

NOT RUN · held for evidence and human review

Working browser surface: Project templates & workflows — overview — Create a local project from this template and validate its forms. This route is local-only; provider, credential, database, customer, publication, deployment, and production effects remain held.

Qualification status

Result

NOT RUN

Disposition

HELD

Reviewer

Not recorded

Receipt

Not recorded

This page defines proposed acceptance criteria for the qualification lane. It does not execute tests, establish compliance, qualify the subject, or authorize an effect.

Outcome definitions

Verified

All stated evidence and acceptance requirements passed for the exact reviewed revision; this still does not authorize deployment or an external effect.

Failed

One or more deterministic acceptance requirements failed with an inspectable reason.

Needs review

Evidence or interpretation is incomplete, conflicting, or awaits an identified human reviewer.

Held

Authority, required evidence, safe execution conditions, or a principal gate is absent.

The current record remains NOT RUN / HELD. These definitions describe candidate outcomes only.

Proposed deterministic acceptance tests

Route-resolution and distinct-content checks apply only to the admitted canonical routes in this record. Held source-proposed extensions are non-resolving proposals and are excluded.

• Required-field test: submission is rejected when title, owner, scope boundary, source reference, target review date, or acceptance tests are missing; each error is attached to the relevant field and announced to assistive technology.
• Type and range test: dates parse deterministically with timezone; dueAt rejects invalid dates, impossible local times, and disallowed past dates; numeric limits reject non-finite or out-of-range values.
• Cross-field test: out-of-scope behavior cannot be listed as an acceptance criterion; a dependent task cannot precede its predecessor; a target review date cannot precede a required milestone.
• Dependency test: when a required record, source locator, provider, credential, database, customer, publication, or production capability is unavailable, status becomes Blocked or Held with a visible reason and no simulated success.
• Authority test: local draft or index actions may be staged only within the declared owner; external sends, writes, publication, credential use, customer changes, and production changes remain disabled or Held and produce an explicit receipt.
• Revision test: editing a source-bound requirement creates a new revision, preserves the prior value and provenance, records actor and timestamp, and invalidates dependent approval until re-reviewed.
• Accessibility test: every control has a programmatic label, required state, description, and error association; keyboard-only users can complete and review the form; focus moves to the first invalid field; status and failure messages are announced; no information relies on color alone.
• Accessibility test: order of headings, labels, controls, errors, and review summaries is logical at narrow and zoomed layouts; contrast and focus indicators meet the designated product accessibility threshold, with unresolved findings marked Held.
• Privacy test: fields are classified as public, private, or held before entry; private or sensitive values are excluded from public routes and search results; attachments show type, size, local custody, and visibility without hidden upload.
• Privacy failure test: an attempt to place private content in a public claim or public Site context is rejected with a corrective message and an audit receipt.
• Destructive-action test: delete, discard, overwrite, revoke, or replace actions identify the exact record and consequences, require deliberate confirmation, offer cancel, and preserve a reversible revision or recovery path where supported.
• Destructive-action test: cancel, Escape, browser back, refresh, and duplicate submission do not commit a destructive action or create duplicate records.
• Failure-state test: validation failure preserves entered values; dependency failure preserves the draft; scheduling conflict leaves the original schedule unchanged; provider or storage failure reports Held or Unavailable rather than success.
• Failure-state test: network or local persistence interruption produces a retry path that is safe to repeat and identifies whether the last operation was committed, uncommitted, or unknown.
• Review test: the project cannot move to an approval-ready state until required tests, evidence links, unresolved hazards, authority boundaries, and revision status are present.
• No-claim test: all proposal screens and receipts state that the feature is not qualified, deployed, provider-connected, database-backed, customer-indexed, published, or production-active unless separately verified.

Negative and held-state tests

• A prototype route may be mistaken for a connected implementation.
• Missing or ambiguous source provenance may cause unsupported requirements.
• Silent deadline shifts can invalidate dependent work and review commitments.
• Provider, credential, database, customer, publication, or production effects may be falsely represented as complete.
• Private source material may leak into public routes, search, messages, attachments, or claims.
• Destructive edits may remove canonical records or revision history.
• Inaccessible validation and focus behavior may prevent completion or conceal errors.
• Duplicate retries may create duplicate records or conflicting revisions.
• Unresolved conflicts or blocked dependencies may be mistaken for qualification.

Qualification claim boundary

Potentially allowed only after the stated evidence

• A proposal template exists for source-bound app feature qualification.
• The project defines fields, validation, workback, dependency review, accessibility, privacy, revision, authority, and failure-state tests.
• The current route references are local prototype or indexed surfaces as stated by the observed contract.
• External effects are explicitly held pending verification.

Still held

• The feature is qualified, shipped, deployed, or production-ready.
• A provider, credential, database, customer record, publication surface, or production backend is connected.
• A task, schedule change, message, approval, upload, or external write has executed outside the local prototype boundary.
• The project is complete, accepted, or backed by live operating data.
• The capability is available to customers or indexed publicly.

Sources and evidence

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

• source_record:project:app-feature-build
• NotebookCollectionKind.project
• NotebookTodoPayload.dueAt
• Notebook Agenda deadlines/workbacks
• Notebook records provenance and revision contract
• PointGuard persistent cross-app context surface
• Current GuthHub app routes and held web boundary