Activities and Tasks Planning Examination

Scope and Method

This OpenAI examination reviews the drafted planning layer against the supplied pinned service and console revisions. It inspects cited files, symbols, test names and assertions; route permissions and schemas; persistence conditions and side effects; table declarations; the console controls; and the cited product decisions. Test bindings describe existing assertions and do not claim those service or browser tests ran during this documentation job.

The original drafting brief is unavailable in both the starting tree and fetched master. Its missing scope evidence remains a finding. The examination uses the supplied job, registry boundary, charter and records cited by the draft. No source repository, reader implementation, deployment or shared data changes are made.

Examination Counts

Material	Examined	Final State
Existing module artifacts	57	Every artifact receives OpenAI final text
Features	5	Grouping only
Concepts	5	Three active; two superseded with permanent identifiers
Capabilities	19	All remain draft and proposed overall
Business rules	194 existing; 6 added	200 final; 173 mandatory proof obligations
Capability scenarios and edge cases	39	Illustrations retained separately from proof
Journeys	6	34 steps and 18 assertions
Acceptance sets and scenarios	19 / 131	127 bound; 4 proposed
Distinct acceptance bindings	361	File and test-title citations inspected statically
Findings	27 existing; 6 added	33 retained for review
Open questions	4	Recommendations rewritten as product obligations
Shared actor additions	2	Draft rows carry their own pins and observed sources

Static Coverage

Covered means an operation, declaration or surface has a named capability or evidence mapping; it does not mean the capability passes runtime acceptance. The charter stores the individual operation, table and permission mappings.

Scope	Covered / Total	Named Coverage Or Remaining Gap
Product operations	45/45	Charter operation mapping; includes role-offered listing and the service entry point
Literal operation declarations	46/46	Explicit routes, parameterized timeline, history and task configuration declarations, and health declarations
Module table declarations	8/8	Charter table mapping
Published permission keys in the five scoped groups	28/28	Charter permission mapping
Module service test files cited	33/33	Existing rule, scenario or evidence citations
Module service test files bound to acceptance scenarios	31/33	Unbound: timeline benchmark and task-refusal unit suite
CRM console pages and configuration resources	6/6	Activities, activity landing, Tasks, activity types, task types and queues
Attention and responsibility registrations	2/2	Overdue work and queue operations
Owned schedules	1/1	Daily overdue sweep
Owned queues and state machines	0/0	Shared data-job dispatcher and bulk orchestration remain Platform dependencies
Prior inventory allocations	20/20	Qualified supersession references retained
Scoped earlier journey specifications	36/36	Interaction and task journey sources or supersession references; four neighboring-application journeys excluded
Cross-service runtime proof	0/4 dependency groups	Platform baseline orchestration; security policy and role queries; workflow executors; attention delivery

Export adapters in the scoped modules declare snapshot-batch datasets and dependencies for workspace exports. Those adapters are evidence of the module’s contribution; Platform owns lifecycle export delivery. General spreadsheet export remains covered through task views. No new owned outcome requires another capability; the examination adds variants to existing capabilities and records external proof gaps as findings.

Corrections by Capability and Acceptance Set

All capability and acceptance text is rewritten after the verification pass. The structured change ledger in this report records each changed intent, provenance, source, origin, enforcement, proof flag, level and binding value; unchanged identifiers, pins and reference values remain retained.

Artifacts	Examined Content	Correction
CAP-CRM-ACT-001 / ATS-CRM-ACT-001	17 rules; 13 acceptance scenarios	Correct hidden-attendee behavior, bound field-mode reporting, add empty-owner creation finding and tighten proof flags.
CAP-CRM-ACT-002 / ATS-CRM-ACT-002	10 rules; 6 acceptance scenarios	Separate browser and service calendars, retain atomicity, and restrict the title-length enforcement claim to API validation.
CAP-CRM-ACT-003 / ATS-CRM-ACT-003	11 rules; 8 acceptance scenarios	Make overall intent proposed, distinguish local attachment cascade from file cleanup and retain explicit decision origins only.
CAP-CRM-ACT-004 / ATS-CRM-ACT-004	7 rules; 4 acceptance scenarios	Distinguish list replacement from omitted partial-edit properties and limit cleanup claims to the inspected service boundary.
CAP-CRM-ACT-005 / ATS-CRM-ACT-005	14 rules; 10 acceptance scenarios	Retain stream, filters and permission behavior, with additional mandatory proof flagged where scenarios are absent.
CAP-CRM-ACT-006 / ATS-CRM-ACT-006	6 rules; 3 acceptance scenarios	Narrow confirmed intent and correctly distinguish full revision lifecycle from current-label presentation scenarios.
CAP-CRM-ACT-007 / ATS-CRM-ACT-007	8 rules; 3 acceptance scenarios	Keep query and navigation evidence separate from unverified customer policy and present-deployment outcomes.
CAP-CRM-ACT-008 / ATS-CRM-ACT-008	12 rules; 9 acceptance scenarios	Retain configuration limits and list behavior while identifying unproved lock and reorder variants.
CAP-CRM-ACT-009 / ATS-CRM-ACT-009	8 rules; 5 acceptance scenarios	Separate participant declaration and adoption proof from external provisioning and reconciliation.
CAP-CRM-ACT-010 / ATS-CRM-ACT-010	13 rules; 12 acceptance scenarios	Correct open-status creation, retained replacement exceptions and due-time truncation evidence.
CAP-CRM-ACT-011 / ATS-CRM-ACT-011	12 rules; 8 acceptance scenarios	Limit uniform problem-code claims to lifecycle refusals and identify further mandatory actor and console proof gaps.
CAP-CRM-ACT-012 / ATS-CRM-ACT-012	13 rules; 9 acceptance scenarios	Apply queue and role distinctions, preserve assignment version weakness and correct inactive-queue scenario expectations.
CAP-CRM-ACT-013 / ATS-CRM-ACT-013	12 rules; 6 acceptance scenarios	Add role-existence, suspended-user list and role-scope boundaries; distinguish Product authority from workstream implementation choices.
CAP-CRM-ACT-014 / ATS-CRM-ACT-014	9 rules; 4 acceptance scenarios	Correct the offered-list exception to general query browsing and preserve the missing console view.
CAP-CRM-ACT-015 / ATS-CRM-ACT-015	8 rules; 6 acceptance scenarios	Replace live switch and Home assertions with documented defaults and local item-emission proof.
CAP-CRM-ACT-016 / ATS-CRM-ACT-016	10 rules; 8 acceptance scenarios	Correct inactive configuration expectations and preserve unsupported queue-control findings.
CAP-CRM-ACT-017 / ATS-CRM-ACT-017	12 rules; 8 acceptance scenarios	Replace universal exactly-once wording with deduplicated creation and current-state repeat behavior.
CAP-CRM-ACT-018 / ATS-CRM-ACT-018	8 rules; 3 acceptance scenarios	Retain direct and dataset access for orphans and narrow diagnostic deletion-audit evidence.
CAP-CRM-ACT-019 / ATS-CRM-ACT-019	10 rules; 6 acceptance scenarios	Separate local workspace foreign keys from external eligibility checks and narrow full-lock acceptance steps.

Concept, Feature and Journey Changes

Artifact	Change
CON-CRM-ACT-001	Activity gains classification facets; its body distinguishes empty-owner intent from creation behavior.
CON-CRM-ACT-002	Activity Type is superseded into Activity; its identity and source history remain.
CON-CRM-ACT-003	Task gains queue routing facets alongside assignment, offered roles and lifecycle.
CON-CRM-ACT-004	Task Queue is superseded into Task with its identifier retained.
CON-CRM-ACT-005	Timeline remains a broad context view; editability no longer promises lock-aware behavior.
FEAT-CRM-ACT-01 through FEAT-CRM-ACT-05	Each feature groups its children without repeating rules; classification and routing features act on the parent concepts without duplicating concept ownership.
JNY-CRM-ACT-001	All actions and assertions rewritten; calendar differences remain explicit.
JNY-CRM-ACT-002	Closing and stale-action assertions retain their pinned evidence.
JNY-CRM-ACT-003	Queue item audience proof is separated from Home delivery.
JNY-CRM-ACT-004	Baseline expectations are separated from verified provisioning outcomes.
JNY-CRM-ACT-005	Overall intent is proposed; CRM refusal proof does not establish workflow executor handling.
JNY-CRM-ACT-006	Merge and deletion remain distinct, and orphan context loss is explicit.
ACT-CRM-006, ACT-CRM-007	New actor wording, row-level pins and draft authority; service invocation is distinct from user permission evaluation.
MOD-CRM-ACT	New charter text, current titles and intent, static mappings and corrected test-binding total.
ID_REGISTRY.md	Permanent allocations precede new rules and findings; titles and next-rule counters match the final artifacts.
FINDINGS.md	Every finding and question receives OpenAI text; six examination findings are added.

Final Text Inventory

The table identifies every artifact’s rewrite scope. Concept bodies retain the six required sections and fall within the required word range. Verification and final text are committed in separate units for the planning artifacts, with later corrections and reconciliation commits retained rather than rewriting branch history.

Artifact	Final Text Scope
FINDINGS.md	Charter, ledger or findings prose and display labels
ID_REGISTRY.md	Charter, ledger or findings prose and display labels
MOD-CRM-ACT	Charter, ledger or findings prose and display labels
ATS-CRM-ACT-001	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-002	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-003	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-004	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-005	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-006	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-007	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-008	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-009	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-010	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-011	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-012	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-013	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-014	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-015	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-016	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-017	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-018	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
ATS-CRM-ACT-019	Scenario titles, setup, actions, expected outcomes, data needs and coverage prose
CAP-CRM-ACT-001	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-002	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-003	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-004	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-005	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-006	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-007	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-008	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-009	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-010	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-011	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-012	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-013	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-014	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-015	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-016	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-017	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-018	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CAP-CRM-ACT-019	Title, purpose, outcomes, conditions, all rule and example text, illustrative scenarios, relationships and body
CON-CRM-ACT-001	draft; six concept sections
CON-CRM-ACT-002	superseded; six concept sections
CON-CRM-ACT-003	draft; six concept sections
CON-CRM-ACT-004	superseded; six concept sections
CON-CRM-ACT-005	draft; six concept sections
FEAT-CRM-ACT-01	Grouping-only feature text
FEAT-CRM-ACT-02	Grouping-only feature text
FEAT-CRM-ACT-03	Grouping-only feature text
FEAT-CRM-ACT-04	Grouping-only feature text
FEAT-CRM-ACT-05	Grouping-only feature text
JNY-CRM-ACT-001	Narrative, steps, alternate paths, failures and assertions
JNY-CRM-ACT-002	Narrative, steps, alternate paths, failures and assertions
JNY-CRM-ACT-003	Narrative, steps, alternate paths, failures and assertions
JNY-CRM-ACT-004	Narrative, steps, alternate paths, failures and assertions
JNY-CRM-ACT-005	Narrative, steps, alternate paths, failures and assertions
JNY-CRM-ACT-006	Narrative, steps, alternate paths, failures and assertions

Unresolved Findings

No finding is closed merely because the documentation now describes the limitation accurately. The following identifiers retain every disagreement for Andrew’s review.

Finding	Open Disagreement
FND-CRM-ACT-001	The milestone remains Proposed with no approved plan; named recorded decisions confirm their own scope, while other observed behavior needs Product review.
FND-CRM-ACT-002	Assignment checks user-reference syntax without the recorded Platform membership and task-eligibility check, allowing valid-looking references that selectors would not offer.
FND-CRM-ACT-003	Activity replacement enforces complete payloads, while task and configuration replacements still reset omitted values; this differs from the recorded update contract.
FND-CRM-ACT-004	An activity left without links has no timeline context and its console landing fails, although direct reads and authorized dataset queries can return it; orphan management and deleted-link audit requirements remain incomplete.
FND-CRM-ACT-005	Ordinary saves can set module record locks, but a full lock has no supported release path; the recorded requirement calls for narrowly authorized and audited transitions.
FND-CRM-ACT-006	The earlier acceptance inventory describes activity custom fields even though the recorded architecture decision removes them and the API rejects them.
FND-CRM-ACT-007	The form uses browser today for follow-up timing while omitted-date service calculation uses the activity’s workspace day, so equivalent interactions can receive different due days.
FND-CRM-ACT-008	Console duration, end-time and follow-up controls use narrower or stricter limits than the service; Activity and its configuration therefore admit different inputs across surfaces.
FND-CRM-ACT-009	The attention record describes publishing disabled pending Platform readiness, and no due or assignment notification is implemented; deployed switch state and actual delivery are not established here.
FND-CRM-ACT-010	Role-offered task reads and claims exist in APIs, but Tasks has no offered-to-me view or role-offer creation control.
FND-CRM-ACT-011	Task type and queue deactivation preserves references but does not reject new work or claims, unlike activity type retirement.
FND-CRM-ACT-012	Due dates containing a time are accepted with that component discarded, while the earlier acceptance expectation asks for a field-specific refusal.
FND-CRM-ACT-013	Task, task-type and task-queue bulk permissions exist in the catalog without operations that use them.
FND-CRM-ACT-014	Task type commentary describes immediate in-use deletion refusal, whereas the dependent foreign key is checked at commit.
FND-CRM-ACT-015	Timeline editability follows update permission without considering record locks, permitting a control that can later fail on save.
FND-CRM-ACT-016	The earlier activity-query run reports customer-policy refusals; Platform policy contents at the pinned commits and current deployment remain outside this examination.
FND-CRM-ACT-017	Queue configuration presents team, distribution, due-time and escalation controls without stored service behavior, contrary to the recorded removal of mock-only live controls.
FND-CRM-ACT-018	Activities baseline installation and workspace cleanup require Platform to register the CRM participant; this job can verify the CRM declaration but not that external registration.
FND-CRM-ACT-019	Assignment accepts an omitted version and then allows the last write to take effect, unlike the mandatory version checks on closing and reopening.
FND-CRM-ACT-020	The task console has no deletion action; deleting a task requires administrator API authority.
FND-CRM-ACT-021	The Activities page exists without an entry in the inspected CRM navigation, leaving address or link access as its entry path.
FND-CRM-ACT-022	Activity table commentary and an existing read-test title retain references to removed activity custom fields.
FND-CRM-ACT-023	Proposed scenarios retain proof gaps for follow-up title validation, assignment eligibility, console role-offer discovery and audited locking; they are not passing executable evidence.
FND-CRM-ACT-024	The earlier journey catalog marks the module journeys unstarted despite existing Playwright specifications; specification existence does not establish a passing run.
FND-CRM-ACT-025	Task contributor and workflow service actor additions are draft proposals within the otherwise approved CRM actor record and still require Product review.
FND-CRM-ACT-026	The task page is workspace-level rather than under CRM, and the corrected module scope includes its shared task and activity components.
FND-CRM-ACT-027	The earlier inventory and this corpus use overlapping capability spellings for different allocations; inventory references must retain repository qualification.
FND-CRM-ACT-028	Additional refusals, calculations and related writes now carry must-prove, but the rule references in this finding still lack dedicated acceptance scenarios.
FND-CRM-ACT-029	The requested drafting brief is absent from the starting tree and fetched master, preventing independent review of any constraints it adds beyond the supplied job.
FND-CRM-ACT-030	Role-offer integration still needs external executor proof and decisions on invalid role references, suspended-user listing and duplicated role-selection logic.
FND-CRM-ACT-031	Pinned source and historical notes establish defaults and expectations without proving deployed switches, security policy contents or present acceptance outcomes.
FND-CRM-ACT-032	Compound statements and diagnostic tests can exceed their cited assertions; corrected claims are narrowed and unresolved executable coverage is retained for design review.
FND-CRM-ACT-033	A user-created activity sent with empty ownership is assigned back to the caller by the creation default, so the console’s No Owner choice does not persist on initial save; a later edit can clear ownership.

Product Questions

Question	Decision Needed
OQ-CRM-ACT-001	Does task work need complete revision history?
OQ-CRM-ACT-002	Where should role holders discover offered work and overdue offers?
OQ-CRM-ACT-003	Should inactive task types and queues reject new work?
OQ-CRM-ACT-004	Which date anchors follow-up timing?

Validation

The required dependency installation and conformance command passes with zero errors. The repository test command passes all four tests. These checks validate corpus structure and checker behavior; service integration, deployed acceptance and browser execution are not rerun. The branch descends from the supplied starting commit and is not pushed.

Verdict for Andrew

The examined layer is a faithful sourced planning description of the scoped behavior at the pinned revisions, with unverified integration and conflicting intent explicitly retained as findings. Its weakest areas are executable proof for newly mandatory rules, assignment and role eligibility, orphan management, and dependencies on deployed Platform and workflow services. Before design starts, Product should decide the open questions and recorded conflicts, then require targeted proof for those gaps and the external integration paths.