--- status: reconciled-partial coverage_depth: deep last_reconciled: 2026-07-18 specs: - apps/oshun/web/e2e/first-tara-sit-deepening.spec.ts - apps/oshun/web/e2e/scene-password-and-grants.spec.ts - apps/oshun/web/e2e/nisaba-notebook-capture-cite.spec.ts - apps/oshun/web/e2e/pwa-install-update-offline.spec.ts - apps/oshun/web/e2e/messages-center.spec.ts source: WALKTHROUGH/journeys/coverage.md --- # Journey result: Journey E2E quality audit — Wave 5 - **Walked**: 2026-06-05 as a seven-auditor re-review of the then-current 52-journey suite, followed by a one-worker run against the available web and BFF development stack. - **Reconciled**: 2026-07-18 against the current 64-journey registry, the Wave 6 successor, and the surviving Tara, scene, Nisaba, PWA, and messages specs. This was a source reconciliation, not a fresh full-suite runtime walk. - **Verdict**: **partial** — Wave 5's durable contribution is methodological and concrete: live execution disproved auditor premises, vacuous guards were made falsifiable, and four useful failure-mode tests landed. Several observations described one 2026-06-05 environment and have since been superseded by deeper coverage or product fixes. - **Lineage**: [Wave 4](./journey-e2e-quality-audit-2026-06-05-wave4.md) supplied the prior repair ledger; [Wave 6](./journey-e2e-quality-audit-2026-06-05-wave6.md) later became the live work list and corrected more route and test claims. ## Result at a glance | Wave 5 lane | Dated evidence | Current source disposition | Authority limit | | ----------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Auditor premise checks | A messages count and a Nisaba passage/title assumption failed in the live dev environment and were reverted | Preserved as an audit lesson, not a current product invariant; the current suites model the real messages path and explicit Nisaba unavailable/full-passage states | One environment can falsify a claim but cannot define every environment | | Tara early exit | Exiting below 80% reached a shame-free `partially-completed` state | Still present in `first-tara-sit-deepening.spec.ts`, with the completion status asserted | Browser source proof was reconciled; this page did not rerun it | | Tara offline reflection | Offline submission queued a `tara:reflection:*` item and exposed local-save copy | Still present, including the honest no-drain boundary after reconnect | Local queue persistence is not server synchronization | | Scene failure modes | Missing-password copy and the per-owner mass-share `429 mass_share_pattern` branch were added | Both remain explicit in `scene-password-and-grants.spec.ts` | Deterministic route/store time, not a production abuse-traffic study | | Vacuous format guards | Optional `count()` branches let missing BibTeX/Markdown controls pass | Closed: current notebook tests require those controls, their pressed state, changed preview, and exported content | Named formats, not every export consumer | | Consent terminology | “Rejected consent suppresses update” was false; only unresolved consent held the prompt | Current PWA spec and headers consistently drive the unresolved gate and then resolve consent | Application prompt logic, not browser/OS install policy | | Deferred defects | Heatmap labels and an unsubscribe race were left open | Later fixed: heatmap cells now have descriptive labels; unsubscribe arms `waitForRequest` before retrying the hydrated submit | Current source presence, not a new accessibility or flake-rate run | ## Evidence map Wave 5's strongest visual is the correction loop: an auditor claim had to survive both source review and observable runtime behavior before it could enter the coverage record. ```mermaid flowchart LR A[Source-backed audit claim] --> B[One-worker live check] B --> C{Observed as claimed?} C -- no --> D[Revert overreach
record environment truth] C -- yes --> E[Make assertion falsifiable] D --> F[Wave 6 and later repairs] E --> F F --> G[Current 64-journey registry] G -. fresh execution required .-> H[Current runtime verdict] ``` ## Proven observations ### The repairs that still carry evidence - The Tara suite retries the early-exit click across a known hydration seam, then requires the `partially-completed` state. Its offline reflection case checks the local queue key, queued presentation, persistence through reload, and the absence of a fabricated reconnect drain. - The scene suite drives the missing-password redirect copy and isolates a per-owner share window before requiring the backend's `429` reason. That is a more falsifiable contract than asserting a mocked error body. - The Nisaba notebook suite no longer treats citation-format buttons as optional. BibTeX and Markdown controls must render and change the preview; notebook exports also pin media types and representative exported content. - The PWA update suite says what the product implements: a waiting update is suppressed while consent is unresolved. Resolving consent is distinct from accepting optional cookies and does not retroactively turn rejection into a suppressing state. - The messages unsubscribe path now arms a request waiter before the click, retries across the hydration boundary, and asserts payload plus idle success state. That later hardening closes the flake Wave 5 explicitly left behind. ### Historical observations that are no longer current truth - “0 unread of 0” described the real, unseeded BFF reached during the Wave 5 run; it was never a contractual total. The current messages coverage includes live dispatch, receipt, read, archive, unsubscribe, suppression, and restore behavior with BFF read-back. - The one-language Nisaba unavailable desk described that run's unauthenticated SSR outcome. The current scholarly-read suite deliberately owns both the unavailable projection and a full passage model with Pali, English, and Both modes. Neither fixture certifies production SSR credential propagation. - The Arete heatmap accessibility gap was real then and is closed in the current source: the heatmap has a group label and each cell receives a date/status label. - Wave 5 still called Sophia grounding and several specimen surfaces blocked or shallow. Wave 6 found registered routes and added real-HTTP coverage; current `coverage.md`, not the Wave 5 “verified-and-left” list, owns those grades. - Its citation-drift prose stopped at a visible skip. A later harness-ledger pass replaced that intermediate state with clean, broken, unavailable, and empty provenance assertions. ## Boundaries and gaps - **A live correction is not a permanent environment contract.** “0 of 0” and one-language fallback copy were observations useful for rejecting false assertions, not values every deployment should preserve. - **A retry across hydration is not first-click proof.** The helpers make the eventual interaction deterministic; separate performance/readiness evidence is needed if first-input responsiveness is the product promise. - **A local reflection queue is not a sync engine.** Reload survival proves client durability. The test intentionally records that reconnect does not drain the Tara item today. - **An explicit unavailable fixture is not production outage evidence.** It proves honest degradation; it does not prove the full server-component auth path or provider availability. - **A rate-limit test is not abuse-system authority.** Deterministic owner/time controls prove the rule, not distributed enforcement, alerting, or evasion resistance. - **Source reconciliation is not current execution.** None of the application E2E specs named here was rerun as part of this documentation-page audit. - **The 52-journey scope is historical.** The current registry contains 64 journeys and later evidence must not be back-projected into Wave 5's result. ## Re-run evidence The surviving Wave 5 seams can be checked serially: ```bash PW_BROWSER_CHANNEL=chrome pnpm exec playwright test \ -c apps/oshun/web/playwright.config.ts \ apps/oshun/web/e2e/first-tara-sit-deepening.spec.ts \ apps/oshun/web/e2e/scene-password-and-grants.spec.ts \ apps/oshun/web/e2e/nisaba-notebook-capture-cite.spec.ts \ apps/oshun/web/e2e/pwa-install-update-offline.spec.ts \ apps/oshun/web/e2e/messages-center.spec.ts \ --workers=1 ``` Use the suite's expected web/BFF harness and retain its revisions and artifacts. A green result supports only these named seams; it does not recreate the exact Wave 5 environment or certify the current 64-journey suite. ## Source trail - [Current journey coverage registry](../journeys/coverage.md) - [Wave 4 predecessor](./journey-e2e-quality-audit-2026-06-05-wave4.md) - [Wave 6 successor](./journey-e2e-quality-audit-2026-06-05-wave6.md) - [Tara early-exit and offline suite](../../apps/oshun/web/e2e/first-tara-sit-deepening.spec.ts) - [Scene password and grant suite](../../apps/oshun/web/e2e/scene-password-and-grants.spec.ts) - [Nisaba notebook suite](../../apps/oshun/web/e2e/nisaba-notebook-capture-cite.spec.ts) - [PWA update and consent suite](../../apps/oshun/web/e2e/pwa-install-update-offline.spec.ts) - [Messages-center suite](../../apps/oshun/web/e2e/messages-center.spec.ts) - [Accessible Arete heatmap source](../../apps/oshun/web/src/components/lilith/arete.tsx) ## Cross-references - [First Tara sit result](./first-tara-sit.md) - [Install-as-PWA result](./install-as-pwa.md) - [Offline first-use journey](../journeys/offline-first-time-use.md) - [Messages-center journey](../journeys/messages-center-deliver-and-unsubscribe.md) - [Nisaba scholarly-read journey](../journeys/nisaba-scholarly-read.md) - [Scene keep-and-share journey](../journeys/scene-keep-and-share.md) ## Open questions - Which harness metadata should every audit artifact retain so environment facts cannot be mistaken for product invariants? - Can hydration readiness expose an explicit signal so interaction specs do not need retry loops to distinguish early clicks from product failures? - When will the Tara reflection queue gain a durable replay contract, conflict policy, and user-visible receipt? - Which test owns production-shaped Nisaba SSR authentication in addition to explicit unavailable and fixture-backed full-passage states? - How should resolved historical gaps be annotated so later readers can see both the original defect and the commit/spec that closed it?