Final Webapp template readiness audit

Audit outcome

Repository audit status: complete

Open repository findings: 0

This audit closes the repository-content portion of Phase 4. It evaluates the framework-neutral webapp template as one coherent system: contracts, schemas, version histories, migrations, validators, generated-repository fixtures, CI, architecture guidance, and product-responsibility boundaries.

The audit does not claim that a repository generated from this template is automatically ready to release or deploy. Generated repositories remain responsible for product declarations, implementation, command execution, approval, retention, signing, publication, deployment, observability, and environment verification.

Current-head CI and review remain merge conditions. Their run and thread state belong to the pull request because committing a mutable review result into the audited branch would immediately make that result stale.

Audit method

The audit used five complementary checks:

read contracts/manifest.json as the closed inventory and compared every registered family with its document, schema, version history, migration ownership, validator responsibility, and architecture guidance;
followed the generated-repository workflow from template customization through implementation evidence, actual evidence production, release-bundle handoff, migration, retirement, retry, supersession, rollback, and completion review;
verified that the retained CI workflow invokes all ten validator forms and the full regression suite from the isolated locked environment;
inspected the clean-room fixture boundaries, provider-neutrality regression, and fixed reviewed command execution model; and
compared the live Git histories and confirmed that webapp has no common ancestor with the unrelated skill, site, or policy branches.

The live audit baseline before this Phase 4 branch was webapp commit 7b8b572ee78a9b73912b512b551a793462d8912c. The Phase 4 branch descends only from that commit.

Authoritative inventory

The manifest bootstrap is version 2. Seven active contract families are registered:

Contract family	Current version	Primary responsibility
`surfaces`	1	Browser-facing surface audience, access, data, stability, and dependency declarations.
`routes`	2	Canonical navigation, aliases, access-failure behavior, deep links, titles, and focus.
`ui_states`	2	Observable states, route or global ownership, recovery, announcements, and focus.
`viewports`	1	Responsive lower bounds, zoom, scrolling, orientation, and input capabilities.
`implementation_evidence`	1	Complete implementation ownership, positive and negative proof, commands, and release gates.
`release_evidence`	1	Exact candidate revision, executed command and gate results, provenance, chronology, and decision.
`release_bundle`	1	Manifest-ordered exact contract bytes for provider-neutral handoff.

There are no retired contract families. The three post-version-1 transitions are owned by the registered migrations for the manifest bootstrap, routes, and UI states. No contract version, schema version, manifest bootstrap version, or migration is added by this audit.

Phase 4 criteria

Criterion	Evidence and conclusion	Outcome
Contract, schema, version, and responsibility closure	The closed manifest, five validator families, registered migrations, architecture documents, and regression suites divide current structure, evolution, implementation evidence, release evidence, and release-bundle responsibilities without an unowned transition or duplicate authority.	Complete
Example ownership	`TEMPLATE.md` requires product-specific replacement or explicit retention, and the generated-repository fixtures deliberately settle template examples as reviewed product declarations before claiming product mode. Template mode makes no product implementation, release, or handoff claim.	Complete
Validator entry-point coverage	`.github/workflows/contract-validation.yml` invokes standalone and module forms for current contracts, evolution, implementation evidence, release evidence, and release bundle. The clean-room fixtures exercise the same ten forms across generated product copies.	Complete
Generated-repository suite scope	Each expensive clean-room class is guarded by template-mode source evidence, and a separate always-active scope regression verifies that the class is skipped after a generated repository changes source implementation evidence to product mode.	Complete
Provider neutrality	`TEMPLATE.md`, the responsibility boundary, operationalization guidance, and the Pages-deployment regression leave framework, package manager, backend, authentication provider, CI provider, artifact store, signing format, release service, deployment platform, and production topology undecided.	Complete
Fixed execution boundary	Validators inspect declarations and results but do not execute arbitrary command strings. The clean-room producers accept only bounded revision or retained-record inputs and directly invoke fixed reviewed fixture scripts and validators. No generic repository command dispatcher exists.	Complete
Unrelated-history boundary	Live Git comparison reported no common ancestor between `webapp` and each of `skill`, `site`, and `policy`. The branch-development rule requires all Webapp work to descend from `webapp` and forbids merging unrelated histories merely to share files.	Complete
End-to-end generated-repository workflow	`docs/operationalization.md` defines one ordered path from baseline selection and contract customization through implementation evidence, actual command execution, release evidence, digest-closed bundle handoff, CI, migration, retirement, retry, supersession, rollback, release ownership, and the completion checklist.	Complete
Product-owned responsibility separation	The template owns reusable declarations and local validation. Product implementation, semantic proof quality, approval, packaging, signatures, retention, publication, deployment, observability, released-revision mapping, and deployed-revision observation remain explicitly product-owned rather than being misclassified as missing template work.	Complete
Merge gate	Phase 4 is accepted only after the pull request validates the current head, all technically valid in-scope review findings are corrected and revalidated, and every review thread is resolved. This mutable evidence is recorded on the pull request, not frozen in this document.	Required at merge

Findings and corrections

Two repository-level completion gaps were found:

Phase 4 had no durable audit record connecting its completion criteria to existing repository evidence. This document and tests/test_final_readiness_audit.py close that gap.
The completion roadmap still named the former unrelated main branch after that branch was renamed to skill. The Phase 4 boundary now uses skill, site, and policy, matching the live repository topology and the README development rule.

No finding requires a new framework-neutral contract family, accepted document shape, schema version, migration, generic command runner, provider integration, publisher, or deployment capability.

Regression boundary

tests/test_final_readiness_audit.py intentionally checks only final-audit integrity:

every Phase 4 criterion remains represented with a closed repository outcome;
the explicit evidence inventory remains present as regular non-symbolic files;
CI retains each of the ten validator entry points exactly once and retains the full regression-suite command; and
the completion roadmap continues to identify Phase 4 as complete, link this audit, and use the current unrelated branch names.

It does not duplicate contract semantics already owned by the five validators or behavioral proofs already owned by the generated-repository suites.

Completion decision

After this Phase 4 change is merged with successful current-head CI and resolved review, no identified gap requires another framework-neutral, repository-authoritative, locally verifiable contract or conformance check. The webapp branch is therefore complete for its stated template scope.

Further template changes should be driven by a concrete generated-repository failure. A proposed new contract family must satisfy the criteria in contract-completeness.md; product-specific concerns remain in the generated repository.