← Selected projects

LOCAL ENGINEERING CASE / 02

Counselor Collaboration & Release Verification

Explicit task states, role-scoped collaboration and a release process that checks whether the accepted software is the software being packaged.

Vue 3Spring BootPlaywrightSHA-256
Records reviewed
2026.10.13
Public material
Synthetic screenshots & code example
Validation scope
Existing acceptance records reviewed

01 / WORKFLOW

Progress and approval are separate states

A task at 100% progress is not automatically an accepted task.

Campus tasks combine multiple participants, materials, deadlines and review. The implementation tracks individual progress, start and due dates, submissions, acceptance, return comments, extensions and cancellations. The dashboard separates current work from future arrangements; review-required tasks count as complete only after approval.

Local application / desktop layout / synthetic content
Local application / responsive mobile layout

The screenshots document the newer local application. The online showcase is a separate static synthetic sample; it is not the complete application or a production deployment.

02 / SYSTEM BOUNDARIES

Reliability across roles and retries

01

Visible selection stays current

Changing a filter clears selected tasks that are no longer visible, reducing accidental bulk review of hidden items.

02

Access follows the resource

The server scopes access by person, class or college. Student-care text has a separate visibility boundary; contacts, chat sessions and attachments are checked independently.

03

Retry is part of the contract

The browser provides weak-network retry and submission feedback. The server handles repeated requests and content conflicts, so an uncertain response does not justify blind duplication.

03 / RELEASE VERIFICATION

Bind acceptance to the artifacts

The release process records SHA-256 digests of the backend program, production frontend directory and browser report. It recalculates them before packaging. Changed artifacts, incomplete restart evidence, browser failures or skipped checks block packaging. Copied artifacts are checked again afterward, with a package manifest and ZIP digest.

Build

Production frontend & backend

Isolated acceptance

Browser, HTTP, chat and restart

Compare digests

Bind the report to three artifacts

Package & verify

Copied files, manifest and ZIP

Matching hashes establish artifact consistency. Report authenticity and authority to release still require independent controls.

import { checkReleaseEvidence } from './release-gate.mjs';

const result = checkReleaseEvidence(acceptance, browserReport, currentDigests);
if (!result.allowed) console.error(result.errors);

// Run synthetic fixtures:
// node --test release-gate.test.mjs
  • Artifact changes
  • Skipped browser checks
  • Incomplete restart evidence
  • Malformed reports

04 / EVIDENCE & LIMITS

Read the results with their scope

Existing records reviewed on 13 October 2026; complete business acceptance was not rerun for this portfolio update.

Existing recordObserved resultScope
Browser acceptance17 checks passed; no failures, skips or flaky retries.Local isolated environment, including production desktop and independent H5 checks.
Release summaryHTTP business, chat and restart marked passed.Backend, frontend and browser-report digests bound to acceptance.
Packaging safeguards18 checks passed.Small isolated fixtures covering changed artifacts, failed reports, private files and preservation of existing releases.

The independent H5 checks do not mean the release includes a separate mobile installation package. Deployment uses responsive webpages.

The public pure-function example tests synthetic summaries. It does not build, scan or package the application, and does not replace integration or deployment validation.

Remaining deployment work

Current design assumes a single backend instance. Local records do not cover target MySQL, a production Linux service, certificates, real roster migration or external model quality. Runtime and dependency upgrades require assessment.

A research question to test

Do business states, page actions and server permissions remain consistent? Can binding reports to artifacts reduce version-mixing errors? These questions need a defined fault model and controlled comparisons before claiming user-efficiency improvements.