The coverage map describes specified proof, not a passing run. Each mandatory rule below has a scenario or an explicit finding; a proposed scenario remains an execution obligation even when its expected outcome follows the pinned implementation.
Menu filtering needs labels, section matches, no matches, Escape, active breadcrumbs and rail navigation. Accounting adjacency remains a planned assertion that the pinned registry does not satisfy.
Awards survives with Prizes appended; without the placement it remains absent.
The interaction rows cite the contracts they exercise. Related combinations without a complete case remain in the coverage finding, together with cross-capability workflows and permission boundaries. A helper assertion is bound only for its stated outcome; the full browser handoff remains proposed until a suite checks it.
Pinned source and exact test anchors are recorded in frontmatter. Test bindings record static assertion review and use the executable-suite register; no product test result is inferred from that review. The prior planning and design examinations supply context, while this continuation records the remaining proof obligations explicitly.
Coverage
Rulecovered
Transitioncovered
Validationcovered
Permissiongap: FND-PFM-CSH-056
Edgegap: FND-PFM-CSH-056
Failuregap: FND-PFM-CSH-056
Boundarygap: FND-PFM-CSH-056
Concurrencygap: FND-PFM-CSH-056
Invariantgap: FND-PFM-CSH-056
Interactiongap: FND-PFM-CSH-056
Test Scenarios
11 scenarios proving CAP-PFM-CSH-006; 5 bound to an existing test.
01Entitlements remove unusable menu sectionspermissionunitnegativetest