Source: https://guthlabs.ai/docs/project-templates/customer-indexing/qualification/ project template / candidate # Customer indexing โ€” qualification The distinct qualification record for Customer indexing. This page is proposal-only. Status: **proposed**Lifecycle: **candidate** ## 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 ยท held for evidence and human review **Working browser surface:** [Project templates & workflows โ€” overview]() โ€” 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. ### Lane-specific instrument aids No verified instrument is assigned to this qualification lane. ## 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`