Activities and Tasks Design Examination
The examination covers all 43 design artifacts and the module’s responsibility boundary. Final prose, structured design text and diagrams are written by codex. Existing planning rules and approval values remain unchanged.
| Examined material | Count | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| Domain objects | 3 | All eight owned tables and the computed timeline |
| Object invariants | 33 | Database and service enforcement checked |
| State models | 5 | 24 states and 53 transition rows |
| Workflows | 8 | 44 anchored hops, daily reconciliation and delegated cleanup |
| Service contracts | 2 | All 47 declared operations, including health and service access |
| Screen contracts | 9 | All scoped screens, with shared sheets and hosted timelines grouped |
| Decision records | 16 | Origins, alternatives and consequences checked |
The strongest evidence is local persistence, route authorization, database constraints and the console components that issue requests. Each artifact’s changes and the exact evidence-field corrections are recorded in the structured examination inventory. The explicit source-field audit resolves every concrete local path and literal anchor; cited test assertions were read as static evidence rather than reported as newly passing execution.
Corrections separate ordinary activity-save requirements from deletion retention, complete the task status inventory, account for queued role offers, map actual drawer mutations and distinguish workspace counts from selected views. They also remove global exactly-once and exact-attention implications: creation matching lasts while its row exists, later workflow commands use current state, and reconciliation can publish superseded task details.
The remaining disagreements include eligibility checks, replacement completeness, orphan management, task history, inactive task configuration, follow-up timing and attention availability. Deleted interaction history and the task header count differ from their unqualified planning rules and now have explicit findings. External registration, executor behavior, publication, cleanup recovery and alarm delivery need evidence from their owners before integration readiness can be established.
No model call was found in the scoped implementation. Every service, workflow and screen contract explicitly declares an empty inference list, so no Inference Operation was invented. The existing charter-sentence finding remains because the charter is outside this job’s edit scope.
The required dependency installation, corpus check and four checker tests pass. This is a source examination and authoring result; it supplies no deployed or end-to-end acceptance result.
The examined design is a faithful, bounded account of local activity and task behavior at the pinned commits, with discrepancies recorded instead of converted into product approval. Its weakest evidence is external Platform readiness and the freshness of attention reconciled from separately read task pages. Before implementation preparation, Andrew should resolve the listed planning disagreements, choose attention availability and freshness expectations, and confirm the integration proof required from the owning areas.