Engineering build — qualification

Record status

Record ID

project:engineering-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.

• VAL-01: Empty required fields prevent submission, identify each field, and move focus or provide an equivalent programmatic association to the first error.
• VAL-02: Whitespace-only titles, owners, IDs, and acceptance criteria are rejected; surrounding whitespace is normalized deterministically.
• VAL-03: Canonical project IDs and acceptance test IDs are unique within the project; duplicates are rejected without overwriting an existing record.
• VAL-04: Invalid dates, impossible date ordering, missing time zone context, negative durations, and unsupported priority values are rejected with actionable messages.
• VAL-05: A task with a blocked or held required dependency cannot be marked ready or complete; the blocking dependency is named.
• VAL-06: Circular dependency graphs are detected deterministically and qualification is held until the cycle is removed or explicitly reviewed.
• VAL-07: A missed deadline displays overdue state and preserves the original dueAt; no automatic external rescheduling occurs.
• VAL-08: Editing scope, acceptance criteria, dependencies, or evidence creates a new revision and leaves the previous revision inspectable.
• VAL-09: Qualification cannot be approved when any required acceptance test is unrun, failed, lacks evidence, or has unresolved critical hazards.
• VAL-10: Invalid inputs, empty states, unavailable records, save failures, duplicate submissions, and interrupted saves show distinct recoverable states and do not claim success.
• VAL-11: Destructive actions such as deleting a project, removing evidence, or invalidating a revision require an explicit confirmation naming the affected record and offer cancel; cancellation makes no change.
• VAL-12: Destructive actions are reversible where possible through a held or archived state; permanent deletion is unavailable unless authority and retention rules are explicitly recorded.
• VAL-13: External sends, provider writes, credential use, database writes, customer indexing, publication, and production deployment remain visibly held and cannot be represented as completed by local approval alone.
• VAL-14: Private records are excluded from public or broad search results according to their visibility field; source labels and provenance remain inspectable to authorized reviewers.
• VAL-15: Keyboard-only users can complete, review, correct, and submit the form; focus order follows section order and focus is never trapped unexpectedly.
• VAL-16: Every control has an accessible name, every validation message is programmatically associated, status changes are announced without relying on color, and contrast meets the designated accessibility requirement.
• VAL-17: Reduced-motion preferences avoid required animation; deadlines, failures, and approvals remain understandable without timing-dependent interaction.
• VAL-18: A qualification receipt records project ID, revision, tests run, outcomes, unresolved failures, reviewer, decision, and timestamp without asserting deployment or production state.

Negative and held-state tests

• A prototype route may appear connected even though provider, credential, database, customer, publication, and production effects are held.
• Incomplete provenance or copied evidence can make a test result non-reproducible.
• Stale dependencies can make a passing build unqualified after inputs or scope change.
• Automatic rescheduling or recurrence could create hidden commitments or external effects.
• Destructive deletion could remove evidence or revision history needed for auditability.
• Private notes, file references, or customer-like data could become visible through broad search or shared context.
• Accessibility failures could prevent correction of invalid forms or conceal held and failed states.
• A local approval could be misread as deployment, provider connection, publication, or production qualification.

Qualification claim boundary

Potentially allowed only after the stated evidence

• A proposal for a bounded software-build qualification workflow exists.
• The workflow defines deterministic validation, scheduling, dependency, revision, accessibility, privacy, destructive-action, authority, and failure-state tests.
• The workflow is designed around the observed Notebook records, to-dos, agenda, approvals, notes, files, and project surfaces.
• Qualification decisions are intended to remain human-reviewed and receipt-backed.

Still held

• Deployment or production readiness.
• Provider, credential, database, customer, publication, or production connection.
• Successful execution of the engineering build.
• Qualification of any particular implementation.
• External calendar, messaging, storage, or deployment effects.
• Authority to delete, publish, send, index, or modify external systems.

Sources and evidence

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

• source_record:project:engineering-build
• NotebookCollectionKind.project
• NotebookTodoPayload.dueAt
• Notebook Agenda deadlines/workbacks
• Notebook records preserve canonical IDs, provenance, revisions, lifecycle, tags, links, and attachments
• PointGuard remains a cross-app context surface while specialist apps own execution and canonical records
• /app/notebook/projects/
• /app/notebook/to-dos/
• /app/notebook/agenda/
• /app/notebook/approvals/
• /app/notebook/notes/
• /app/notebook/files/