4.7 KiB
Open Questions
Entry Template
date: YYYY-MM-DD
author: <agent|name>
scope: <files/routes/features>
type: question
rationale: <why unresolved>
impact: <user/system/security/i18n/a11y>
status: open|resolved
Question:
Needed from:
Decision deadline:
Q-001: Auth Logging Redaction Standard
date: 2026-03-11
author: Cline
scope: auth/email APIs and actions logging
type: question
rationale: Existing logging appears verbose in sensitive flows.
impact: Potential privacy/security exposure via operational logs.
status: open
Question: What mandatory redaction and structured logging policy should be enforced for auth/email/document flows (fields blocked, allowed metadata, and incident correlation expectations)?
Needed from: Security lead + application owner
Decision deadline: Before Sequence B Workstream B2 rollout
Current context:
- Relay logging policy has already been hardened in middleware, but auth/email/file routes still have uneven logging style.
- Reference planning docs:
context/next-work-plan-sequence-b.mdcontext/current-state-scorecard.md
Q-002: Test Strategy Baseline for Sparse tests/
date: 2026-03-11
author: Cline
scope: testing strategy repository-wide
type: question
rationale: tests/ currently appears minimal; validation relies heavily on manual checks.
impact: Increased regression risk and slower release confidence.
status: open
Question: What minimum automated coverage should be required per change type (feature, bug fix, high-risk integration), and which suites become mandatory CI gates?
Needed from: Engineering lead + QA
Decision deadline: Before enabling Sequence C CI parity gate rollout
Current context:
- Focused high-risk automation exists in phase21/phase22 (auth redirect, i18n route parity, relay hardening, endpoint contract slices).
- A formal CI baseline decision is still needed to institutionalize these checks.
Q-003: Runtime canonical startup path selection
date: 2026-03-25
author: Cline
scope: runtime startup path and operational documentation
type: question
rationale: Dual server entrypoints (server.js and server/server.js) remain a known architecture ambiguity in review artifacts.
impact: Operational ambiguity can increase deployment and incident-response risk.
status: open
Question: Which startup path is canonical for dev/test/prod, and what is the deprecation plan for the non-canonical entrypoint?
Needed from: Technical lead + DevOps owner
Decision deadline: Before runtime-affecting refactor or next deployment process update
Q-004: Representation Participation Availability business validation
date: 2026-06-18
author: Cline
scope: representation participation availability across summary/search/domain policy
type: question
rationale: Technical characterization is complete, but several compatibility-sensitive behaviours may be historical rather than intentional and need business confirmation before any further representation-policy adoption or behaviour change work.
impact: User-facing participation availability, blocked messaging, cross-portal consistency, and future domain-boundary decisions.
status: open
Question: Which current representation participation behaviours are intended business rules, and which are historical compatibility behaviours only?
Needed from: Product owner + business analyst + relevant SME/CRM data owner
Decision deadline: Before any further representation-policy adoption, expansion, normalization, or behavioural change work
Current context:
- Technical characterization and documentation are now recorded in:
docs/representation-participation-availability.mddocs/representation-participation-business-review.md
- Business validation is especially needed for:
- Rights of Way behaviour when process information is incomplete or stored differently
- Advertisement behaviour when process information is incomplete or conflicting
- whether all portal areas should behave consistently
- Householder blocked-message suppression
- CPO ended-message / deadline consistency
- missing or conflicting process information handling
Q-005: Portal API Security Boundary Assessment
date: 2026-06-19
author: Architect Review
scope: API endpoints and ownership enforcement
type: question
rationale: Discovery programme complete. Security/access boundary review identified as the highest-value architecture stream.
impact: security, privacy, maintainability
status: open
Question: What is the current ownership-validation and access-control posture across public and authenticated API endpoints?
Needed from: Architecture review stream
Decision deadline: Before major domain-layer adoption or API modernization work.