## 2026-03-18 | Process UIUX Feedback — KB Intake Folder Display

**Context:**
- Source: human
- Task: TASK-952 (to be created)
- Workflow: N/A
- Calling skill: N/A

**Message:**
> Get uiux feedback, please visit feedback folder x-ipe-docs/uiux-feedback/Feedback-20260318-083710 to get details.

Feedback content: KB intake view shows file count as 0 when a folder is uploaded. Requests: (1) Fix count logic to show top-level folders/files within .intake folder, (2) Support folder display with expand/collapse in file list view.

**Instruction Units:**

### Unit 0: Process UIUX feedback as a Change Request for KB intake folder/file display
**Disposition:** instruction
**Suggested Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-change-request (strong match)
**Rationale:** The user submitted structured UIUX feedback containing two tightly coupled changes (count logic fix + folder tree UI) for the KB intake view. This is a change request against an existing feature (KB intake/upload). Per engineering workflow, FEEDBACK stage → change_request → routes to feature_refinement or feature_breakdown. Single unit because both parts are tightly coupled to the same feature area.
**Content:** Process the UIUX feedback from `x-ipe-docs/uiux-feedback/Feedback-20260318-083710/feedback.md` as a Change Request. The CR targets the KB intake/upload feature: (1) fix file count logic to count top-level items (folders and files) in the .intake directory, (2) add folder tree display with expand/collapse in the intake file list view. Follow x-ipe-task-based-change-request skill procedure.

| Entry ID | Timestamp | Task ID | Calling Skill | Disposition | Confidence | Summary |
|----------|-----------|---------|---------------|-------------|------------|---------|
| DAO-080 | 2026-03-18T00:42:23Z | TASK-952 | N/A | instruction | 0.90 | Process UIUX feedback as CR for KB intake folder display |

## DAO-080
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-18T00:42:23Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-952
- **Feature ID:** N/A
- **Workflow:** N/A
- **Calling Skill:** N/A
- **Source:** human
- **Disposition:** instruction
- **Confidence:** 0.90

### Message
> Get uiux feedback, please visit feedback folder x-ipe-docs/uiux-feedback/Feedback-20260318-083710 to get details. Feedback: KB intake file count shows 0 for uploaded folders. Fix count logic for top-level items and add folder tree display with expand/collapse in intake view.

### Guidance Returned
> Process the UIUX feedback as a Change Request using x-ipe-task-based-change-request skill. The CR covers two tightly coupled changes: fix count logic + add folder display UI.

### Rationale
> User submitted structured UIUX feedback — this maps to FEEDBACK stage → change_request in engineering workflow. Strong keyword + engineering-next alignment.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-change-request"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "UIUX feedback requesting changes to existing KB feature maps to change request processing"
>     execution_steps:
>       - phase: "1. Understand CR"
>         step: "1.1 Read CR input"
>       - phase: "2. Analyze Impact"
>         step: "2.1 Identify affected features"
>       - phase: "3. Classify & Route"
>         step: "3.1 Route to refinement or breakdown"

### Follow-up
> None

---

## 2026-03-18 | CR-006 Classification Confirmation — FEATURE-049-F Content Width

**Context:**
- Source: ai
- Task: TASK-CR006
- Feature: FEATURE-049-F
- Workflow: N/A
- Calling skill: x-ipe-task-based-change-request

**Message:**
> CR-006 for FEATURE-049-F requests widening the KB article content/image rendering area from max-width: 780px to full available width with margins. This is a CSS layout change. Classification proposed as `modification`. Agent requests confirmation to proceed to Phase 5.

**Instruction Units:**

### Unit 0: Confirm CR-006 classification as `modification`
**Disposition:** approval
**Suggested Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-change-request (strong match — continue Phase 5)
**Rationale:** Classification evidence is thorough: CSS-only change within existing FEATURE-049-F, no new data models/workflows/integrations, builds on CR-004. One minor AC conflict (AC-049-F-16b) is well-understood. Small-scope assessment is accurate. Approval is the smallest useful intervention.
**Content:** Classification confirmed as `modification`. Proceed to Phase 5. During Phase 5, clarify AC-049-F-16b wording to distinguish image scaling behavior from container width change.

| Entry ID | Timestamp | Task ID | Calling Skill | Disposition | Confidence | Summary |
|----------|-----------|---------|---------------|-------------|------------|---------|
| DAO-087 | 2026-03-18T10:15:00Z | TASK-CR006 | x-ipe-task-based-change-request | approval | 0.93 | CR-006 classification confirmed as modification — CSS layout change within FEATURE-049-F |

## DAO-087
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-18T10:15:00Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-CR006
- **Feature ID:** FEATURE-049-F
- **Workflow:** N/A
- **Calling Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-change-request
- **Source:** ai
- **Disposition:** approval
- **Confidence:** 0.93

### Message
> CR-006 for FEATURE-049-F requests widening KB article content/image rendering area from max-width: 780px to full available width with margins. Classification proposed: modification. Reasoning: CSS-only change within existing feature, no new data models/workflows/integrations, one minor AC conflict (AC-049-F-16b). Small-scope assessment. Agent requests confirmation to proceed to Phase 5.

### Guidance Returned
> Classification confirmed as `modification`. Reasoning is well-evidenced: CSS-only layout change within existing FEATURE-049-F, no new data models/workflows/integrations, builds on CR-004. The minor AC-049-F-16b conflict (image scaling vs container width) is acknowledged — clarify AC wording during Phase 5 to distinguish scope. Proceed to Phase 5.

### Rationale
> Thorough conflict analysis supports `modification`. Small-scope CSS change exhibits no characteristics of `extension` or `new_feature`. One minor AC wording conflict is manageable. Approval is the smallest useful intervention to unblock Phase 5.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-change-request"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "Agent is mid-execution of change-request skill; confirmation unblocks Phase 5 continuation"
>     execution_steps:
>       - phase: "5. Apply Changes"
>         step: "5.1 Update specification and ACs"

### Follow-up
> During Phase 5, update AC-049-F-16b wording to clarify that `max-width: 100%` refers to image scaling within its container, not the container width itself.

---

| DAO-090 | 2026-03-18T12:57:54Z | TASK-968 | N/A | instruction | 0.90 | Process UIUX feedback for KB upload zone: add success indication + click-to-browse support |

## DAO-090
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-18T12:57:54Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-968
- **Feature ID:** N/A
- **Workflow:** N/A
- **Calling Skill:** N/A
- **Source:** human
- **Disposition:** instruction
- **Confidence:** 0.90

### Message
> Get uiux feedback, please visit feedback folder x-ipe-docs/uiux-feedback/Feedback-20260318-205614 to get details. Feedback: "the normal uploading should have an indication the uploading is succeed, and now only support drag and drop, can we also support click open a native file selection window to select."

### Guidance Returned
> Process this UIUX feedback as a change request for the KB Normal Upload zone. The feedback requests two improvements: (1) add visual upload success indication after file upload completes, (2) enable click-to-browse native file selection in addition to drag-and-drop. Use x-ipe-task-based-change-request skill following the FEEDBACK stage workflow. The screenshot shows the upload zone already has "browse" text but it may not be functional.

### Rationale
> User is providing structured UIUX feedback from testing the KB upload feature. This maps to FEEDBACK stage → change_request action. Strong match with x-ipe-task-based-change-request skill. Both improvements target the same component and should be handled as a single CR. Confidence high because intent is clear and feedback is well-structured with screenshot evidence.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-change-request"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "UIUX feedback requesting modifications to existing KB upload feature — maps to FEEDBACK stage change_request action"
>     execution_steps:
>       - phase: "1. CR Analysis"
>         step: "1.1 Analyze impact on existing requirements"
>       - phase: "2. Conflict Detection"
>         step: "2.1 Check spec/design/code conflicts"
>       - phase: "3. Routing"
>         step: "3.1 Determine if CR modifies existing feature or requires new feature"

### Follow-up
> None

---

| DAO-091 | 2026-03-18T13:44:05Z | TASK-973 | N/A | instruction | 0.88 | Process UIUX feedback: unify file preview across KB browse, workflow deliverables, and all other preview locations |

## DAO-091
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-18T13:44:05Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-973
- **Feature ID:** FEATURE-049-F
- **Workflow:** N/A
- **Calling Skill:** N/A
- **Source:** human
- **Disposition:** instruction
- **Confidence:** 0.88

### Message
> Get uiux feedback, please visit feedback folder x-ipe-docs/uiux-feedback/Feedback-20260318-213942 to get details. Feedback: "the preview of the file should be like the deliverable preview in workflow mode. it should support docx. please also review the preview there make sure all the supported file there should be also supported here. and why not from technical perspective, can we share the same preview logic or component so we won't have this kind of inconsistancy. please check the other places, I rememeber we do have several other places have file preview function. if we can make all of them consistent"

### Guidance Returned
> Process this UIUX feedback as a Change Request for FEATURE-049-F. The user wants: (1) KB browse file preview to match workflow deliverable preview — support docx and all formats supported there, (2) audit all file preview locations across the app for consistency, (3) share the same preview logic/component to eliminate inconsistency. IMPORTANT: CR-004 (TASK-925, Zephyr, in_progress) already addresses "rich file preview in KB browse" including docx/markdown/images/PDF. This new CR should extend CR-004's vision by auditing all preview locations and ensuring shared components. Check deliverable preview in action-execution-modal.js, ideation preview, and any other locations. Use x-ipe-task-based-change-request skill.

### Rationale
> User submitted structured UIUX feedback about inconsistent preview behavior across the app. Maps to FEEDBACK stage → change_request. CR-004 already partially covers this (KB preview enhancement) — the new request extends scope to cross-app consistency and shared components. Confidence slightly lower (0.88) due to broad "check all other places" scope requiring investigation. Single unit because all parts serve one goal: unified preview.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-change-request"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "UIUX feedback requesting cross-app preview unification — maps to FEEDBACK stage change_request action"
>     execution_steps:
>       - phase: "1. CR Analysis"
>         step: "1.1 Analyze impact on existing requirements"
>       - phase: "2. Conflict Detection"
>         step: "2.1 Check spec/design/code conflicts — especially CR-004 overlap"
>       - phase: "3. Routing"
>         step: "3.1 Determine if CR extends CR-004 or requires new feature"

### Follow-up
> Agent should audit: (1) action-execution-modal.js deliverable preview, (2) ideation preview (ideas_routes.py), (3) KB browse preview (kb-browse-modal.js), (4) any other file preview locations. Identify which formats each supports and what shared component can serve all.

---

## 2026-03-18 | CR-008 Scope & Classification Confirmation — FEATURE-049-F Unified File Preview

**Context:**
- Source: ai
- Task: TASK-973
- Feature: FEATURE-049-F
- Workflow: N/A
- Calling skill: x-ipe-task-based-change-request

**Message:**
> CR-008 for FEATURE-049-F: Unify file preview. Agent requests confirmation on two gates: (1) CR Challenge — proposed scope: extract shared FilePreviewRenderer to core/, KB browse modal uses it, other locations receive recommendations only, Link Preview Manager excluded due to architectural gap; (2) Classification as `modification` — no new data models/workflows/user types, reuses existing ContentRenderer and conversion_utils, extends CR-004's vision.

**Instruction Units:**

### Unit 0: Confirm CR-008 scope and classification as `modification`
**Disposition:** approval
**Suggested Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-change-request (strong match — continue Phase 5)
**Rationale:** Both gates pass thorough analysis. The scope properly balances user's "make everything consistent" intent with practical risk management: shared component extraction to core/ is architecturally sound, scoping mandated changes to FEATURE-049-F avoids cross-feature scope explosion, Link Preview Manager exclusion is correct given architectural incompatibilities. Classification as `modification` is well-evidenced — the shared component is an architectural improvement serving the existing feature, not a new capability. CR-004 relationship (CR-008 extends, not duplicates) is clearly delineated. Approval is the smallest useful intervention.
**Content:** Both gates confirmed. (1) Scope approved — extracting FilePreviewRenderer to core/ with mandated adoption in KB browse and recommended adoption elsewhere is a pragmatic, risk-managed approach. Link Preview Manager exclusion is correct. (2) Classification confirmed as `modification` — reuses existing ContentRenderer/conversion_utils, no new data models or workflows, shared component serves existing feature's preview needs. During Phase 5, clearly mark the shared component extraction as "new shared utility within existing architecture" in the specification to avoid future scope ambiguity.

| Entry ID | Timestamp | Task ID | Calling Skill | Disposition | Confidence | Summary |
|----------|-----------|---------|---------------|-------------|------------|---------|
| DAO-092 | 2026-03-18T14:30:00Z | TASK-973 | x-ipe-task-based-change-request | approval | 0.92 | CR-008 scope and classification confirmed — shared FilePreviewRenderer extraction as modification to FEATURE-049-F |

## DAO-092
- **Timestamp:** 2026-03-18T14:30:00Z
- **Task ID:** TASK-973
- **Feature ID:** FEATURE-049-F
- **Workflow:** N/A
- **Calling Skill:** x-ipe-task-based-change-request
- **Source:** ai
- **Disposition:** approval
- **Confidence:** 0.92

### Message
> CR-008 for FEATURE-049-F: Unify file preview. Two gates: (1) CR Challenge — scope: extract shared FilePreviewRenderer to core/, KB browse uses it, other locations as recommendations, Link Preview Manager excluded; (2) Classification as `modification` — no new data models/workflows/user types, reuses ContentRenderer and conversion_utils, extends CR-004. Challenges: CR-004 overlap (extends not duplicates), cross-feature scope (scoped to FEATURE-049-F), Link Preview Manager architectural incompatibility (excluded).

### Guidance Returned
> Both gates confirmed. (1) **Scope approved** — extracting FilePreviewRenderer to core/ with mandated adoption in KB browse and recommended adoption elsewhere is pragmatic and risk-managed. Link Preview Manager exclusion is correct given architectural incompatibilities (different endpoint, XSS vulnerability, binary file rejection). CR-008/CR-004 relationship is well-delineated: CR-008 adds the shared component layer that CR-004 doesn't address. (2) **Classification confirmed as `modification`** — reuses existing ContentRenderer and conversion_utils, no new data models, workflows, user types, or integration points. The shared component extraction creates new code in core/ but serves the existing feature's preview needs, keeping it within modification territory. During Phase 5, clearly document the shared component as "new shared utility within existing architecture" to avoid scope ambiguity in future reviews.

### Rationale
> Both gates pass analysis with high confidence. Scope balances user's "make everything consistent" intent with practical risk management — mandatory for FEATURE-049-F, recommended for others, excluded where architecturally incompatible. Classification as modification is correct: the shared component is an architectural improvement (refactoring preview logic into a reusable form), not a new capability. The CR-004 overlap is properly handled as an extension relationship. Approval is the smallest useful intervention to unblock Phase 5.

### Suggested Skills
> suggested_skills:
>   - skill_name: "x-ipe-task-based-change-request"
>     match_strength: "strong"
>     reason: "Agent is mid-execution of change-request skill at Phase 2.1/4.2 gates; confirmation unblocks Phase 5 continuation"
>     execution_steps:
>       - phase: "5. Apply Changes"
>         step: "5.1 Update specification and ACs for FEATURE-049-F"

### Follow-up
> During Phase 5: (1) Mark shared component extraction as "new shared utility within existing architecture" in spec. (2) Add cross-feature adoption recommendations as a separate section (not as mandated ACs). (3) Document the CR-004 → CR-008 extension relationship in the CR summary.
