Eligibility Design Examination
What Was Examined
The examination covers every domain object, state model, workflow, service contract, screen contract and decision record in this module, together with its shared responsibility boundary. The pinned implementation is compared with the approved planning rules, cited decisions and design templates. The requested design brief is absent, so its content remains unknown rather than reconstructed.
All seventy design artifacts receive an OpenAI text pass. Verification corrections are committed separately from each artifact’s final rewrite; unchanged verified facts retain their metadata. No planning artifact is edited and no approval is inferred from code.
Coverage
| Boundary | Coverage | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| Operations | Seventy-two of seventy-two | Three public health names follow the shared generated route pattern. |
| Tables | Thirty-five of thirty-five, grouped into five objects | Durable-job tables are execution facets rather than extra concepts. |
| Screens | Ten built contracts and one explicitly absent proposed surface | The proposed attention settings screen is not claimed as implemented. |
| Durable execution | Three of three state machines | Population, responsibility reconciliation and computed attention are covered. |
| Scheduling | Four module schedules and three schedule dead-letter queues | Security’s role-check queue and Operations’ partition maintenance remain external ownership. |
| Inference | All thirty-five caller contracts declare no inference | Fact-provider invokes do not ask a model. |
Coverage establishes inventory mapping and design examination, not exhaustive acceptance proof. The retained planning findings still describe unbound tests and incomplete browser journeys. Exact mappings and source-resolution results are retained in the report metadata.
What Changed
The object corrections separate service checks from database guarantees, exact-window uniqueness from overlap exclusion, ordinary history preservation from purge, and retained-key generations from permanent numbering. State and workflow corrections preserve independent personal response facets and expose first-write, closure and audience races.
Evaluation now distinguishes awaited authorization history, deferred display history and SQL-only checks that insert no history. Workflows describe independent nightly schedules, separately committed sweep phases, bounded retirement repair, over-capacity outcomes and cohort-limited reminder deduplication. Provider merge follow-up is unknown because a resolve helper does not establish a provider hook.
Screen contracts now describe the mounted controls and actual components: bulk personal delegation, immediate cover ending, sampled bell counts, loaded-subset sorting, private-rule confirmation and immediate shared-use changes. The hosted-only interim evaluation record is proposed because its deferral has no approving product record. Broken source-path whitespace is corrected, and the shared responsibility inventory agrees with the service operation identities.
What Remains Open
Reminder delivery still conflicts with the approved Notifications and default-off decisions. The sender lacks a current-audience check and its request acceptance can diverge from reminder stamps. Product-rule replacement can leave an unbound product, while personal attention writes and responsibility window checks have concurrency or temporal gaps.
Preparation must account for optional version preconditions, missing retention scheduling, finite retired-kind repair and absent provider merge proof. The existing material questions about enumeration authority, run discovery and cancellation, durable follow-ups and atomic product-rule replacement remain open. The charter’s missing no-inference sentence is retained as a finding because changing planning is outside this job.
Validation
The mandatory dependency installation, corpus conformance check and corpus test suite are run before the final examination commit. Validation results are recorded in metadata. Runtime integration and browser tests are not reported as executed.
Verdict for Andrew
The examined design is a faithful, qualified account of the module at the pinned commits, with uncertain external follow-ups explicitly marked and approved intent separated from implementation. Reminder delivery, concurrent personal responses and post-commit recovery are its weakest areas. Before implementation preparation, resolve the existing choices for durable follow-ups and atomic product replacement, confirm reminder migration and enabling behavior, and assign the recorded version, audience and temporal defects to concrete repair work.
Continuation (pass 2)
This continuation examines the twenty capability test specifications, six feature acceptance suites and all five hundred and twelve executable entries. It checks category coverage, required-rule mappings, source files, bound test-title locators and reciprocal scenario bindings. The earlier design examination remains the record for objects, state models, workflows, contracts, screens and decisions; this pass does not alter those artifacts.
All two hundred and ninety-seven testing scenarios receive explicit action and assertion provenance and rewritten binding qualifications. Twenty-seven executable case lists lose extraction fragments that are not test titles, and the testing report receives final continuation text and corrected validation results. The previous report identifies no unfinished artifact rewrite; its checker compatibility blockers are resolved by the checker already present on the starting branch.
The seven required rules without scenarios and all one hundred and eighteen category gaps remain recorded in existing findings. Three hundred and twenty-nine executable suites have no scenario mapping; contributed assertions do not establish complete scenario execution. These are qualification work recorded as findings, so they do not leave the documentation continuation unfinished.
Dependency installation, corpus conformance and all seven tooling tests pass; conformance reports zero errors. Runtime integration and browser suites remain unexecuted, and this pass grants no product approval.
Verdict for Andrew
The completed testing continuation preserves the examined design and identifies the limits of its proof at the pinned commits. Its weakest evidence remains complete feature execution, concurrent audience changes and recovery across stores. Before implementation preparation and qualification, resolve the existing product choices and assign the recorded coverage and recovery findings to executable repair work.