Skip to content

Phase 6 Review — Productization (in-environment scope)

Historical review recorded before the 2026-07-29 post-review improvements. TED is now verified live, the dashboard has filters/detail views, and GitHub Pages automation is prepared. The statements below remain the evidence that was true at the original review time.

Date: 2026-07-28 · Four-review standard applied to the productization work.

1. Engineering review

Executed and green: ruff clean, mypy strict clean (36 source files), 192 tests passed, mkdocs build --strict green with the expanded nav. Actually generated (not just written about): the weekly report (reports/weekly_report_*.md), the data dictionary from live schema introspection (35 warehouse objects), and the committed sample exports (XLSX + 11 CSVs + manifest) in data/samples/.

Findings: - The weekly report is byte-reproducible by construction and by test: its as-of date is the latest stored run timestamp — no wall-clock values exist in the output (generate twice → identical is a test). - The data dictionary is generated by scripts/gen_data_dictionary.py from PRAGMA introspection of a freshly built warehouse — documentation that cannot drift from the schema. - Deployment recipes are explicitly labelled NOT-executed-here with their verification steps (docker daemon and package index unavailable).

2. Data review

  • Sample exports and the sample report are pipeline outputs over committed fixtures — regenerable with three commands (data/samples/README.md), each carrying provenance (README sheet / manifest / demo banner).
  • The report's tender radar computes "upcoming" against the stored as-of date, keeping the document deterministic; expired deadlines are counted, not hidden.

3. Business review

  • The brief's portfolio deliverables now exist and cross-reference: case study (10 required points), analysis report (findings each with a lineage path and observation-vs-inference label), Upwork assets (title, ~850-char description, three packages mapped to repo proof points, pilot structure, proposal snippets, client-problem list — and no prices, per brief rule).
  • Missing from the brief's demo-asset list and honestly not fake-able here: dashboard screenshots and an OpenAPI link (no dashboard/API can run in this environment) and the portfolio video script's screen-capture targets beyond CLI output. Tracked in backlog P3 as environment-blocked.

4. Honesty review

  • The analysis report leads with a demo-data notice and still keeps the brief's full section discipline (coverage, alternative explanations, limitations) — the template proves itself without fabricating findings. ✅
  • Security pass: no secret patterns in the repo; .env git-ignored; the only full-profile secret is the local Postgres password via .env. ✅
  • Deployment claims: none — every recipe states it has not been executed here and what its verification step is. ✅
  • Weekly report over demo data cannot be mistaken for market reporting (banner + per-section "demo values" labels). ✅

Gate decision: Phase 6 passes for its in-environment scope. The project is now handover-ready: remaining items (first CI run, dashboard/API, live source integration C-03, DuckDB/Postgres restoration, curated company seed) all require a network-enabled environment and are listed in the backlog with their conditions.