Robert Bond
@@ -18,6 +18,44 @@ Follow-ups:
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### CL-2026-06-18-CRM-CASE-PROGRESS-CONTEXT: record CRM Case Progress Display investigation conclusions
|
||||
|
||||
date: 2026-06-18
|
||||
author: Cline
|
||||
scope: `context/current-platform-state.md`, `memory-bank/{techContext,productContext,change-log}.md`
|
||||
type: change
|
||||
rationale: Preserve the completed CRM Case Progress Display investigation conclusions in project context so future contributors do not re-open the same status/lifecycle ambiguity without need.
|
||||
impact: Documentation/context only; improves architectural clarity around case status display ownership and inputs; no runtime, auth, i18n, API, or behaviour change.
|
||||
status: completed
|
||||
|
||||
Summary:
|
||||
|
||||
- Updated project context to record that the Case Status tab is a portal-owned journey interpretation layer.
|
||||
- Recorded the active input model as:
|
||||
- CRM `statuscode`
|
||||
- appeal type
|
||||
- specialist process (Rights of Way only)
|
||||
- Recorded that `pinswg_casestage` is not a significant active input to current status-tab lifecycle resolution.
|
||||
- Recorded that stage catalogues are best understood as:
|
||||
- user-facing journey models
|
||||
- appeal-type interpretation models
|
||||
- presentation-layer progress visualization
|
||||
- Recorded that shared catalogue families (`PLANNING_S78`, `ENFORCEMENT`, `DNS/SIP`, Rights of Way specialist-process variants) reflect a mixture of shared journey structures, presentation reuse, and historical consolidation.
|
||||
- Recorded the architectural conclusion that this area is presentation architecture / journey interpretation, not a new business-policy domain boundary candidate.
|
||||
|
||||
Validation:
|
||||
|
||||
- Documentation/context update only.
|
||||
- No application code changed.
|
||||
- No tests changed.
|
||||
- Lint/tests skipped because this was documentation-only work.
|
||||
|
||||
Follow-ups:
|
||||
|
||||
- Reopen only if a future business-validation or behaviour-change initiative requires deeper lifecycle/status decision work.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### CL-2026-06-18-RPA-DOCS: representation participation availability documentation + context update
|
||||
|
||||
date: 2026-06-18
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
|
||||
## Business logic patterns visible in code
|
||||
|
||||
- Case summary UI varies by appeal type and case attributes.
|
||||
- Case status/progress display is portal-shaped rather than a raw CRM passthrough: the portal selects a journey catalogue from CRM `statuscode`, appeal type, and limited Rights of Way specialist-process input to present user-facing progress.
|
||||
- Representation actions are conditionally shown by appeal type, role, and date windows.
|
||||
- Representation participation now appears to form one broader business decision model: whether a participant can engage in representation or consultation activity for a case at that point in the process.
|
||||
- Locale-sensitive behavior affects links, routes, labels, and email template choice.
|
||||
@@ -40,11 +41,24 @@
|
||||
- `docs/representation-participation-availability.md`
|
||||
- `docs/representation-participation-business-review.md`
|
||||
|
||||
## Current case progress display state
|
||||
|
||||
- Technical investigation for CRM Case Progress Display is complete.
|
||||
- Current behaviour is best understood as a **user-facing journey representation**, not a business-policy decision model.
|
||||
- The Case Status tab is driven by:
|
||||
- CRM `statuscode`
|
||||
- appeal type
|
||||
- specialist process for Rights of Way variants only
|
||||
- `pinswg_casestage` should not currently be treated as a significant input to status-tab lifecycle behaviour.
|
||||
- Shared catalogue families exist and reflect a mixture of:
|
||||
- genuine shared journey structures
|
||||
- presentation reuse
|
||||
- historical consolidation
|
||||
|
||||
## Likely next discovery candidate
|
||||
|
||||
- Case Lifecycle / Status Decision Model Discovery
|
||||
- expected focus: case progress, stages, statuses, closed states, dashboard grouping, and lifecycle messaging
|
||||
- should be treated as discovery-only pending review of the new representation participation documentation
|
||||
- No immediate successor discovery candidate is implied by the completed CRM Case Progress Display stream.
|
||||
- If reopened later, work should focus on business validation or future behavioural change questions rather than first-pass technical characterization.
|
||||
|
||||
## Important user-facing behaviors
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -54,6 +54,15 @@
|
||||
- representation participation is best understood as one coherent decision model with layered exceptions
|
||||
- known consumer divergences and CRM compatibility behaviours are part of the current live contract
|
||||
- future technical adoption/expansion work should wait for business validation before changing behaviour or broadening policy boundaries
|
||||
- CRM Case Progress Display investigation has now been concluded as a technical characterization stream.
|
||||
- Current technical conclusion:
|
||||
- the Case Status tab is a portal-owned journey interpretation layer
|
||||
- active inputs are CRM `statuscode`, appeal type, and Rights of Way specialist-process routing only
|
||||
- `pinswg_casestage` is not a significant active input to status-tab lifecycle resolution
|
||||
- stage catalogues are not raw CRM lifecycle states and not business-policy decision models
|
||||
- stage catalogues are best understood as user-facing journey models plus appeal-type interpretation plus presentation-layer progress visualization
|
||||
- shared catalogue families (`PLANNING_S78`, `ENFORCEMENT`, `DNS/SIP`, Rights of Way specialist-process variants) reflect a mixture of shared journey semantics, presentation reuse, and historical consolidation
|
||||
- this area is not currently a candidate for a new business-policy domain boundary
|
||||
|
||||
## CI/CD and deployment artifacts
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user