DongHyeonkaandClaude Opus 5
3ea3397691
Three boundaries the layer contract declares had no executable rule behind them, so the code drifted across all three while every gate stayed green. `src/contracts` reached back up into `src/application` for the shared `Result` carrier and the compatibility predicate. Neither package owned the shared vocabulary and the dependency pointed both ways. Both now live in contracts — the lower package — and application re-exports them, so no caller moves. A concrete adapter was not supposed to depend on another concrete adapter, but only adapter-to-presentation was enforced, and `diagnostics` imported a guard out of `telemetry`. The guard belongs to neither, so it moved to the adapter kernel. Stating the rule needed the checker to resolve `$1` in a `to` pattern against the importing module's own directory; the alternative is one rule per adapter group, which silently stops covering a group the moment one is added. Product assembly leaks out of bootstrap: generic presentation reads the installed-feature registries. That is a real refactor, so the rule freezes the exact set of modules doing it today rather than pretending it is fixed — a new edge fails. The two remaining open edges are named in the config, not silent. Each rule was verified by introducing the violation it forbids and confirming the gate rejects it. The documentation drifted the same way. README and the manual accessibility checklist both said six routes while ten were registered, which left the platform overview and three reference-resource screens outside the declared manual review scope without anyone deciding they should be. The scope is now derived from the route registry by `verify:documentation`, so the sentence cannot outlive the registry again. The review ledger also named a canonical path that does not exist in this tree; it is upstream provenance, and it now says so instead of looking like a broken repository reference. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.4 KiB
Manual accessibility review checklist
Automated axe checks do not establish WCAG conformance. A human reviewer must
review all ten route records in artifacts/tests/a11y-manual/ against one
release candidate and sign them. The required scope is derived from the route
registry: APP_HOME, EXAMPLES_PLATFORM, EXAMPLES_UI, EXAMPLES_STATES,
EXAMPLES_AUTH, NOT_FOUND, REFERENCE_RESOURCE_LIST,
REFERENCE_RESOURCE_DETAIL, REFERENCE_RESOURCE_FORM and
REFERENCE_RESOURCE_STATUS. Copy the template fields exactly; the gate rejects
blank identity/timestamp/signature fields, pending verdicts, mismatched release
IDs, or missing routes.
This list is not maintained by hand: verify:documentation compares it against
the installed route registry and fails when a registered route is absent. It
said six routes while ten were registered, which put the platform overview and
the three reference-resource screens outside the declared manual review scope
without anyone deciding they should be.
Allowed item verdicts:
passnot-applicable (<specific reason>)
Required record:
Status: reviewed
Route ID: APP_HOME
Release ID: <immutable release ID>
Reviewer: <human reviewer identity>
Reviewed at: <RFC 3339 timestamp>
Signature: <reviewer identity or approved signature reference>
Attestation: accepted
M1 Keyboard: pass
M2 Visible focus: pass
M3 Route focus: pass
M4 Modal focus: not-applicable (no modal on this route)
M5 Error association: not-applicable (no form error on this route)
M6 Color signal: pass
M7 Reduced motion: pass
Screen reader: pass
Notes: <observations and linked defect IDs>
The reviewer must verify:
- M1: every action works without a pointing device
- M2: every focused element has a visible indicator
- M3: route transitions move focus to a deterministic target
- M4: modal focus is trapped and restored, when a modal exists
- M5: errors are programmatically associated with their controls, when present
- M6: state never relies on color alone
- M7: non-essential motion is suppressed with reduced-motion preference
- Screen reader: headings, live regions, errors, and actions are announced once
EXAMPLES_UI requires real M4 modal and M5 field-error review; those items must
not be marked not-applicable on that route. Passing automated evidence means
only that tested pages had no critical or serious axe findings under the
recorded Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit runs.