Customer indexing — qualification

Record status

Record ID

project:customer-indexing

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.

• Submitting without a project title, owner, target review date, timezone, authorization status, approved domain, or explicit exclusion policy is rejected with field-level errors.
• A domain outside the approved scope, an authenticated route, a private path, or an unknown-visibility source cannot be classified as indexable.
• Authorization marked missing, expired, ambiguous, or scope-mismatched blocks all dependent milestones and displays the blocking dependency.
• The form rejects an end date before or equal to a start date, invalid timezones, malformed date-times, and milestones that violate the required workback order.
• Changing approved domains, exclusions, visibility rules, index fields, consent evidence, or target date increments the revision and changes approval state to Needs review.
• A duplicate submit does not create duplicate canonical records; the existing project ID and revision history remain inspectable.
• A failed save, unavailable local record, attachment-reference failure, or validation error preserves entered values where safe, identifies the failed operation, and provides retry or cancel without claiming success.
• A held provider, credential, database, customer, publication, or production action displays Held, identifies the missing authority, and leaves no external side effect.
• Destructive actions such as deleting an authorization reference, removing an exclusion, clearing all scope, or discarding a revision require an explicit confirmation naming the affected records and offer cancel.
• After a destructive action is confirmed, the prior record remains recoverable through revision history or a documented local recovery state; cancellation changes nothing.
• Keyboard-only users can reach every field, disclosure, error, review control, and confirmation dialog in a logical order.
• Each error is associated with its field, announced to assistive technology, uses text rather than color alone, and does not move focus unexpectedly.
• The interface respects reduced-motion preferences, maintains usable focus indicators, provides sufficient contrast, and exposes labels, instructions, required state, and help text programmatically.
• Private, restricted, or unknown records are excluded from local search results for audiences without the required visibility classification.
• A proposal cannot enter a locally approved state until consent, scope, privacy, authority, schedule, and accessibility checks have explicit human review receipts.
• No acceptance test may be satisfied by claiming a real crawl, provider connection, credential use, database write, customer indexing, publication, or production deployment.

Negative and held-state tests

• Unauthorized crawling caused by ambiguous or stale customer consent
• Private, authenticated, restricted, or personal content entering an index
• Credential leakage through forms, attachments, logs, URLs, or source locators
• Confusing a named native surface with a connected crawler, provider, database, or production feature
• Silent schedule changes that bypass customer or privacy review
• Destructive scope edits that remove exclusions or erase evidence
• Duplicate or conflicting project records caused by repeated submission
• Search leakage across private, held, or restricted visibility partitions
• Accessibility barriers preventing review or consent confirmation
• Unsupported claims that a customer website was crawled, indexed, qualified, published, or deployed

Qualification claim boundary

Potentially allowed only after the stated evidence

• This is a proposed qualification template for planning consent-bound customer website indexing.
• The proposal defines explicit scope, exclusions, privacy review, deadlines, revisions, accessibility checks, and human approval gates.
• The observed Notebook and Guth Hub surfaces can be used as local prototype or index surfaces for organizing the proposal.
• Provider, credential, database, customer, publication, and production effects are intentionally held.

Still held

• That any customer website has been crawled or indexed
• That customer consent or domain ownership has been verified
• That any provider, crawler, credential, database, or production connection exists
• That private content is technically blocked in production
• That the project is qualified, approved for execution, deployed, published, or complete
• That any customer, search index, or external schedule has been modified

Sources and evidence

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

• source_record:project:customer-indexing
• NotebookCollectionKind.project
• NotebookTodoPayload.dueAt
• Notebook Agenda deadlines/workbacks
• Observed native contract: records preserve canonical IDs, provenance, revisions, lifecycle, tags, links, attachments, and receipts
• Observed native contract: PointGuard is a persistent cross-app context surface and specialist apps remain execution and canonical-record owners
• Observed native contract: Guth Hub app routes are local prototypes or indexes and provider, credential, database, customer, publication, and production effects are held