Project-SDE-WP-Suite/docs/waves/wave-9.md

# Wave 9 — Verification and cleanup

**Items:** `CR-008`, `CR-017` (guard), `S6`, `S7`, `S8`, `C1` audit, `C2` audit, part of `C4`
**Depends on:** wave 8 merged
**Why last:** `CR-008` reviews the PDF export against the final structure rather than
reviewing it twice. The audits confirm the standing requirements actually held across eight
waves rather than being asserted per PR.

---

### T9.1 — CR-008: PDF export review

- **Items:** `CR-008`
- **Depends on:** T8.5
- **Blocks:** nothing
- **Surface:** `server/` + `html/`
- **Files:** PDF export

**Problem:** The export was never walked through in the meeting. It needs a pass to confirm
it prints what the field actually needs and nothing it does not, now that the work package
structure has changed substantially.

**Do:** Review the export section by section against the final structure. Sections toggled
off under `CR-006` must be omitted. The export must include: P6 Activity ID and Description,
Priority, Building / Floor / Sector, scope of work, materials, constraints with status,
QA/QC, and an attachment index. Removed fields — ACU Cost Code, Acumatica Task — must not
appear.

Open question to raise in the PR, not to decide alone: should attachments merge into a single
PDF package, or be listed as separate files? The field preference expressed in the meeting
was to hand someone exactly the sheet they need and nothing more, which argues for a merged
package with only the attached sheets. Propose, do not assume.

**Done when:**

- [ ] every listed field appears in the export
- [ ] toggled-off sections are absent
- [ ] ACU Cost Code and Acumatica Task appear nowhere
- [ ] the export is legible printed in black and white
- [ ] the export is legible opened on a tablet
- [ ] the attachment index lists every attachment with its description
- [ ] the merge-versus-list question is raised in the PR with a recommendation

---

### T9.2 — CR-017: Actual Hours guard

- **Items:** `CR-017`
- **Depends on:** T9.1
- **Blocks:** nothing
- **Surface:** verification only
- **Files:** Closeout section

**This is a guard, not a build.** Removing Actual Hours was floated in the meeting and
rejected — Marlena said she likes tracking actual hours spent so it can be measured. It is
listed here so a later simplification pass does not quietly drop it.

**Do:** Confirm Actual Hours still exists in Closeout, is optional rather than required, and
survived eight waves of change.

**Done when:**

- [ ] Actual Hours exists in Closeout and persists
- [ ] it is optional, and a work package can be closed without it
- [ ] it rolls up per `T6.4`
- [ ] a follow-up item is logged for comparing actual against estimated hours to produce a productivity factor

---

### T9.3 — S6: One icon system

- **Items:** `S6`
- **Depends on:** T9.1
- **Blocks:** nothing
- **Surface:** `html/`
- **Files:** every page

**Problem:** The icon set mixes emoji and dingbats, and at least one glyph is used for two
different meanings on the same page.

**Do:** Pick one icon system and convert everything to it. Build a mapping of meaning to icon
and record it in `docs/reference/tokens.md`. Resolve every duplicate meaning.

**Do not:** leave emoji in the UI. They render differently per platform, which is part of why
the same glyph reads as two things.

**Done when:**

- [ ] one icon system across all 6 pages
- [ ] no glyph carries two meanings anywhere
- [ ] every icon has a text label or an accessible name
- [ ] the meaning-to-icon mapping is documented
- [ ] icons render identically on Windows, macOS and a tablet

---

### T9.4 — S7: Sample-data cleanup

- **Items:** `S7`
- **Depends on:** T9.1
- **Blocks:** nothing
- **Surface:** `html/` + `server/`
- **Files:** every sample-data affordance

**Problem:** Four sample-data affordances under three names. One sits a single click from
live project data with no confirm and no undo.

**Do:** Reduce to one affordance with one name. Move it away from live project actions. Add a
confirmation stating exactly what will happen, and make it reversible or clearly scoped to a
sample project only.

**Done when:**

- [ ] exactly one sample-data affordance exists, under one name
- [ ] it is not adjacent to any live project action
- [ ] it confirms before acting, naming what it will do
- [ ] it cannot touch live project data; verify by attempting it against a real project
- [ ] the other three affordances are removed; grep confirms

---

### T9.5 — C1 + S8: Accessibility audit

- **Items:** `C1`, `S8`
- **Depends on:** T9.3
- **Blocks:** nothing
- **Surface:** `html/`
- **Files:** all pages, `.help-tip` elements

**`S8` is finished here** because tooltips are the one accessibility item with no natural
host component earlier in the plan. 15 `.help-tip` badges are `<span>` elements with no
`tabindex`, so the `:focus` half of their CSS rule is dead code and there is no touch path at
all — on tablets, which is exactly what Field View targets.

**Do:** Make every `.help-tip` reachable by keyboard and by touch. Then audit the whole app
against the `CLAUDE.md` rules and record results in `docs/reference/accessibility-audit.md`.

Compare against the wave 0 baseline counts:

| Metric | Baseline | Target |
|---|---|---|
| `<div>` / `<span>` with `onclick` | 12 / 2 | 0 |
| `.help-tip` unreachable by keyboard | 15 | 0 |
| `aria-live` regions | 0 | at least 1 per toast system and banner |
| Text below 4.5:1 | present | 0 |
| `outline: none` without replacement | present | 0 |
| Native dialogs (`alert`/`confirm`/`prompt`) | 79 | 0, or documented exceptions |

**Done when:**

- [ ] every `.help-tip` works by keyboard and by touch
- [ ] every metric above meets target, or the gap is documented with a reason and a follow-up item
- [ ] a full keyboard-only pass completes the primary flow: sign in, create project, SOP wizard, create work package, issue it
- [ ] the audit document exists with per-page results

---

### T9.6 — C2: Mobile pass

- **Items:** `C2`
- **Depends on:** T9.5
- **Blocks:** nothing
- **Surface:** `html/`
- **Files:** all pages

**Problem:** Nothing in the original proposal touched mobile, and it is where the worst
rendering was found. Field View at 390px is the gloved-hands surface.

**Do:** A deliberate pass at 390px across all 6 pages and the full primary flow. Capture
after screenshots and compare against the wave 0 baseline.

**Done when:**

- [ ] the full primary flow completes at 390px without horizontal scrolling
- [ ] tap targets are at least 44px throughout
- [ ] no control is clipped, overlapped or unreachable on any page
- [ ] `CR-007` attachments open at 390px, offline
- [ ] `T8.5` material requests can be raised at 390px
- [ ] after screenshots for all 6 pages at 390px are committed alongside the baseline

---

### T9.7 — Final reconciliation

- **Items:** all
- **Depends on:** T9.6
- **Blocks:** nothing
- **Surface:** documentation
- **Files:** creates `docs/reference/completion.md`

**Do:** Walk all 55 items from `IMPLEMENTATION.md` section 6 and record, for each: built /
deferred / not applicable, the PR that delivered it, and any deviation from its written
acceptance criteria.

Explicitly confirm the four out-of-scope items in section 7 were not built: no parts catalog
or inventory, no asset database integration, no CxAlloy integration, no P6 activity import.

Then list what the plan learned that the next revision should carry: items whose acceptance
criteria turned out wrong, inputs still outstanding, and follow-ups logged along the way.

**Done when:**

- [ ] all 55 items are accounted for with a PR reference or a stated reason
- [ ] every deviation from written acceptance criteria is documented
- [ ] the four out-of-scope items are confirmed unbuilt
- [ ] outstanding inputs from `IMPLEMENTATION.md` section 8 are restated with current status
- [ ] follow-ups are collected in one place for the next revision

---

## Wave 9 exit criteria

- [ ] the export matches the final structure
- [ ] one icon system, one sample-data affordance
- [ ] accessibility metrics hit target or are documented
- [ ] the primary flow works at 390px
- [ ] every item is reconciled