docs(openspec): add reporting API contract documentation

Add comprehensive API documentation for the reporting endpoint:
- Request/response structure
- View type inference (did/is/will)
- Blank vs explicit zero semantics
- Status values and error responses

Related to enhanced-allocation change.
This commit is contained in:
2026-03-08 18:22:27 -04:00
parent 3324c4f156
commit b7bbfb45c0
27 changed files with 1632 additions and 35 deletions

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
schema: spec-driven
created: 2026-02-25

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,239 @@
# Design: Enhanced Allocation Fidelity
## Context
The allocation experience must reflect a strict planning-to-execution model. Current implementation drift introduced incorrect month semantics (`approved_estimate / 12`), mixed concern UIs, and ambiguous status signaling.
This design aligns implementation with the validated operating model:
1. **Projects (Lifecycle)**: `approved_estimate` is the lifecycle total.
2. **Project-Month Plan (Intent)**: manager explicitly sets monthly planned effort per project.
3. **Project-Resource Allocation (Execution)**: for selected month, manager allocates effort by team member.
4. **Reporting (Outcome)**: historical/current/future insights built from these three layers.
## Goals
1. Implement explicit project-month planning as first-class data.
2. Reframe allocation matrix as execution grid with month-plan and capacity variance.
3. Support untracked effort (`team_member_id = null`) end-to-end.
4. Implement partial bulk success for allocations.
5. Keep visual signaling minimal and decision-focused.
## Non-Goals
- Real-time collaboration/websockets.
- Notification systems.
- Export workflows.
- Cosmetic UI experimentation beyond fidelity requirements.
## Decisions
### D1: Month Plan Is Explicit (No Derived Monthly Budget)
- **Decision**: monthly plan is manager-entered and persisted.
- **Rejected**: deriving monthly budget from `approved_estimate / 12`.
- **Reason**: project phasing is dependency-driven, not uniform.
### D2: Reconciliation vs Lifecycle Total
For each project:
- `plan_sum = sum(non-null planned_hours across months)`
- compare against `approved_estimate`
- `plan_sum > approved_estimate` -> `OVER`
- `plan_sum < approved_estimate` -> `UNDER`
- `plan_sum == approved_estimate` -> `MATCH`
Tolerance for MATCH should use decimal-safe comparison in implementation.
### D3: Blank Month Semantics
- Planning grid cell can be blank (`null`) and remains visually blank.
- Allocation variance treats missing month plan as `0`.
- Allocation is allowed when month plan is blank.
### D4: Grid-First Editing
- Project-month planning: inline grid editing primary.
- Allocation matrix: inline grid editing primary.
- Modal is optional/fallback, not primary path.
### D5: Untracked Semantics
- Untracked allocation is represented by `team_member_id = null`.
- Included in project totals and grand totals.
- Excluded from team member capacity/utilization calculations.
### D6: Visual Status Policy
- Over = red
- Under = amber
- Match/settled = neutral
Status emphasis belongs on row/column summary edges and variance cells; avoid noisy color in every interior cell.
### D7: Forecasted Effort Deprecation
- `projects.forecasted_effort` is deprecated for this planning workflow.
- New monthly planning source of truth is explicit project-month plan data.
## Data Model
### New Table: `project_month_plans`
Recommended schema:
- `id` (uuid)
- `project_id` (uuid FK -> projects.id)
- `month` (date, normalized to first day of month)
- `planned_hours` (decimal, nullable)
- `created_at`, `updated_at`
- unique index on (`project_id`, `month`)
Notes:
- `planned_hours = null` means blank/unset plan.
- If storage policy prefers non-null planned hours, clear operation must still preserve blank UI semantics via delete row strategy.
### Existing Tables
- `projects.approved_estimate`: lifecycle cap (unchanged semantics)
- `allocations.team_member_id`: nullable to support untracked
## API Design
### Project-Month Plan APIs
1. `GET /api/project-month-plans?year=YYYY`
- returns month-plan grid payload by project/month
- includes reconciliation status per project
2. `PUT /api/project-month-plans/bulk`
- accepts multi-cell upsert payload
- supports setting value and clearing value (blank)
- returns updated rows + reconciliation results
Example payload:
```json
{
"year": 2026,
"items": [
{ "project_id": "...", "month": "2026-01", "planned_hours": 1200 },
{ "project_id": "...", "month": "2026-02", "planned_hours": 1400 },
{ "project_id": "...", "month": "2026-03", "planned_hours": 400 },
{ "project_id": "...", "month": "2026-04", "planned_hours": null }
]
}
```
### Allocation APIs
- Keep `GET /api/allocations?month=YYYY-MM` and CRUD endpoints.
- Enrich response with month-context variance metadata needed for row/column summary rendering.
- `POST /api/allocations/bulk` must support partial success.
Partial bulk response contract:
```json
{
"data": [{ "index": 0, "id": "...", "status": "created" }],
"failed": [{ "index": 1, "errors": { "allocated_hours": ["..."] } }],
"summary": { "created": 1, "failed": 1 }
}
```
## Computation Rules
### Lifecycle Reconciliation (Project-Month Plan Surface)
For each project:
- `plan_sum = SUM(planned_hours where month in planning horizon and value != null)`
- `status = OVER | UNDER | MATCH` compared to `approved_estimate`
### Allocation Row Variance (Execution Surface)
For selected month and project:
- `allocated_total = SUM(allocation.allocated_hours for project/month including untracked)`
- `planned_month = planned_hours(project, month) or 0 if missing`
- `row_variance = allocated_total - planned_month`
- status from row_variance sign
### Allocation Column Variance (Execution Surface)
For selected month and team member:
- `member_allocated = SUM(allocation.allocated_hours for member/month)`
- `member_capacity = computed month capacity`
- `col_variance = member_allocated - member_capacity`
- exclude `team_member_id = null` rows from this computation
## UX Specification (Implementation-Oriented)
### Surface A: Project-Month Plan Grid
- Rows: projects
- Columns: months
- Right edge: row total + reconciliation status
- Bottom edge: optional month totals for planning visibility
- Cell editing: inline, keyboard-first
- Blank cells remain blank visually
- Color: only summary statuses (red/amber/neutral)
### Surface B: Project-Resource Allocation Grid (Selected Month)
- Rows: projects
- Columns: team members + untracked
- Right edge: project row total + row variance status vs planned month
- Bottom edge: member totals + capacity variance status
- Primary editing: inline cell edit (modal not primary)
- Color: red/amber highlights only for over/under summary states
### Accessibility
- Do not rely on color alone; include text labels (OVER/UNDER).
- Maintain focus and keyboard navigation in both grids.
- Preserve contrast and readable status labels.
## Risk Register
1. **Semantic regression risk**: reintroduction of derived monthly budget logic.
- Mitigation: explicit tests and prohibition in specs.
2. **Blank vs zero confusion**.
- Mitigation: explicit API contract and UI behavior tests.
3. **Untracked leakage into capacity metrics**.
- Mitigation: query filters and dedicated tests.
4. **Bulk partial side effects**.
- Mitigation: per-item validation and clear response contract.
## Testing Strategy
### Unit
- Lifecycle reconciliation calculator
- Row/column variance calculators
- Blank-plan-as-zero execution logic
### Feature/API
- Project-month plan bulk upsert and clear behavior
- Reconciliation status correctness
- Allocation month variance data correctness
- Untracked include/exclude behavior
- Partial bulk success semantics
### Frontend Grid Tests
- Inline edit commit/cancel/clear
- Keyboard navigation
- Summary status placement and labels
- Blank visual state preservation
### E2E
- Create lifecycle estimate project
- Enter monthly plan across months and verify reconciliation
- Execute month allocations and verify row/column variances
- Validate untracked behavior
- Validate partial bulk success handling
## Migration & Rollout Notes
1. Introduce project-month plan model and APIs.
2. Remove derived budget rendering in allocation UI.
3. Wire allocation UI to explicit month plan for variance.
4. Deprecate `forecasted_effort` usage in this workflow path.
5. Keep backward compatibility for existing allocation records.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
# Reporting API Contract
## Overview
The Reporting API provides aggregated resource planning and execution data for management analysis. It supports three view types (did/is/will) inferred from date ranges.
## Endpoint
```
GET /api/reports/allocations
```
## Authentication
Requires Bearer token authentication.
## Query Parameters
| Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
|-----------|------|----------|-------------|
| `start_date` | string (YYYY-MM-DD) | Yes | Start of reporting period |
| `end_date` | string (YYYY-MM-DD) | Yes | End of reporting period |
| `project_ids[]` | array of UUIDs | No | Filter by specific projects |
| `member_ids[]` | array of UUIDs | No | Filter by specific team members |
## View Types
The `view_type` is inferred from the date range:
| View Type | Date Range | Description |
|-----------|------------|-------------|
| `did` | All dates in past months | Historical execution analysis |
| `is` | Includes current month | Active planning vs execution |
| `will` | All dates in future months | Forecast and capacity planning |
## Response Structure
```json
{
"period": {
"start": "2026-01-01",
"end": "2026-03-31"
},
"view_type": "will",
"projects": [
{
"id": "uuid",
"code": "PROJ-001",
"title": "Project Name",
"approved_estimate": 3000.0,
"lifecycle_status": "MATCH",
"plan_sum": 2600.0,
"period_planned": 2600.0,
"period_allocated": 2800.0,
"period_variance": 200.0,
"period_status": "OVER",
"months": [
{
"month": "2026-01",
"planned_hours": 1200.0,
"is_blank": false,
"allocated_hours": 1300.0,
"variance": 100.0,
"status": "OVER"
}
]
}
],
"members": [
{
"id": "uuid",
"name": "Team Member",
"period_allocated": 400.0,
"projects": [
{
"project_id": "uuid",
"project_code": "PROJ-001",
"project_title": "Project Name",
"total_hours": 400.0
}
]
}
],
"aggregates": {
"total_planned": 2600.0,
"total_allocated": 2800.0,
"total_variance": 200.0,
"status": "OVER"
}
}
```
## Status Values
| Status | Meaning | Visual |
|--------|---------|--------|
| `OVER` | Allocated > Planned/Capacity | 🔴 Red |
| `UNDER` | Allocated < Planned/Capacity | 🟡 Amber |
| `MATCH` | Allocated = Planned/Capacity | 🟢 Green/Neutral |
## Blank vs Zero Distinction
- **Blank plan** (`is_blank: true`): No plan entry exists for the month
- `planned_hours`: `null`
- Used for variance: treated as `0`
- **Explicit zero** (`is_blank: false`, `planned_hours: 0`): Plan was explicitly set to zero
- `planned_hours`: `0`
- Distinct from blank for reporting accuracy
## Dependencies
This endpoint combines data from:
- `ProjectMonthPlan` - Monthly planning data
- `Allocation` - Resource allocations
- `Project` - Project metadata (approved_estimate)
- `TeamMember` - Team member capacity
Calculations use:
- `ReconciliationCalculator` - Lifecycle plan vs estimate
- `VarianceCalculator` - Period and monthly variances
## Error Responses
| Status | Condition |
|--------|-----------|
| 422 | Missing or invalid date parameters |
| 422 | `end_date` before `start_date` |
| 401 | Unauthorized (missing/invalid token) |

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
# Proposal: Enhanced Allocation Fidelity
## Why
The current Resource Allocation implementation diverges from intended planning behavior and creates misleading month-level signals.
Current drift:
1. Monthly budget was treated as a derived display (`approved_estimate / 12`) rather than explicit manager planning.
2. Allocation execution and planning intent are conflated in one surface.
3. Visual signaling is noisier than needed for decision-making.
4. Untracked allocation and partial bulk semantics are only partially implemented.
Business need:
- Managers must phase a project lifecycle estimate across months based on dependencies and customer timelines.
- Month execution must be validated against explicit month plans, not an average split.
- Management needs deterministic reporting from a strict plan -> execute chain.
## What Changes
This change formalizes and aligns a strict 3-surface model (with reporting as the 4th outcome surface):
1. **Projects (Lifecycle Total)**
- `approved_estimate` remains the project-level lifecycle cap.
2. **Project-Month Plan (Manager Intent)**
- Manager enters monthly planned hours per project in a grid.
- Monthly plans reconcile against lifecycle total (OVER/UNDER/MATCH).
- Blank planning months remain blank in UI.
3. **Project-Resource Allocation (Month Execution)**
- Allocation grid becomes primary editing workflow (no modal-first dependency).
- Row variance compares month allocation vs project month plan.
- Column variance compares member allocation vs member month capacity.
- Untracked (`team_member_id = null`) is supported as a first-class execution path.
4. **Reporting Outcome**
- Reporting consumes lifecycle total + month plan + resource allocation to show did/is/will views.
## Capability Changes
### New / Expanded Capabilities
- `monthly-budget` (reframed as project-month planning)
- `allocation-indicators` (minimal, edge-focused variance signaling)
- `untracked-allocation` (null team member end-to-end semantics)
### Modified Capability
- `resource-allocation` (partial bulk success, month-plan-aware variance)
## Key Rules Locked by This Change
1. No `approved_estimate / 12` derivation for planning behavior.
2. Month plan reconciliation is explicit:
- sum(plan) > approved -> OVER
- sum(plan) < approved -> UNDER
- sum(plan) == approved -> MATCH
3. Blank planning month is visually blank, but treated as planned `0` for allocation variance.
4. Allocation for blank-plan months is allowed.
5. `projects.forecasted_effort` is deprecated for this workflow.
6. Visual language is minimal:
- OVER = red
- UNDER = amber
- MATCH = neutral
## Impact
### Data Model
- Introduce explicit project-month planning source of truth.
- Stop using `projects.forecasted_effort` in this workflow path.
### API Contract
- Add/adjust project-month plan endpoints and payloads.
- Ensure allocation endpoints provide enough context for row/column variance.
- Keep partial bulk response contract explicit (created/failed/summary).
### Frontend
- Add project-month plan grid surface.
- Refactor allocation matrix to grid-first editing and edge variance indicators.
- Keep status placement low-noise and decision-oriented.
### Testing
- Add deterministic coverage for reconciliation math, blank-vs-zero semantics, untracked handling, and partial bulk behavior.
- Require mapped tests for every requirement scenario before task closure.
## Non-Goals
- Real-time collaboration/websockets in this change.
- Notification systems.
- Export workflows.
- UI polish iterations beyond required planning fidelity.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
# Allocation Indicators Specification
## Overview
This capability defines low-noise variance indicators for planning and execution surfaces.
Indicators are decision aids, not decorative status coloring.
## ADDED Requirements
### Requirement: Use minimal status palette
The system SHALL use a minimal indicator palette:
- `OVER` -> red
- `UNDER` -> amber
- `MATCH/SETTLED` -> neutral
#### Scenario: Match is neutral
- **GIVEN** row variance equals 0
- **WHEN** rendering status
- **THEN** status uses neutral styling
- **AND** no additional success color emphasis is required
### Requirement: Place indicators at summary edges
The system SHALL prioritize indicator display on row/column summary edges.
#### Scenario: Row-level over-allocation indicator
- **GIVEN** project row total exceeds selected month plan
- **WHEN** allocation grid renders
- **THEN** project row summary status shows `OVER` in red
#### Scenario: Column-level over-capacity indicator
- **GIVEN** member column total exceeds member month capacity
- **WHEN** allocation grid renders
- **THEN** member column summary status shows `OVER` in red
#### Scenario: Under-allocation indicator
- **GIVEN** row or column total is below comparison target
- **WHEN** grid renders
- **THEN** summary status shows `UNDER` in amber
### Requirement: Keep indicators explainable
The system SHALL provide text status labels with numeric deltas for accessibility and clarity.
#### Scenario: Color is not sole signal
- **WHEN** status is rendered
- **THEN** UI includes text label (`OVER`/`UNDER`) and delta value
### Requirement: Distinguish project and resource variance semantics
Project variance and resource variance SHALL remain separate.
#### Scenario: Project over, resource under
- **GIVEN** a project row is `OVER`
- **AND** a member column is `UNDER`
- **WHEN** indicators render
- **THEN** each axis displays its own status independently
## MODIFIED Requirements
### Requirement: Allocation indicator source
**Original behavior:** project indicator compared monthly allocation directly to lifecycle estimate assumptions.
**Updated behavior:** indicator semantics in execution surface compare:
- project row totals vs **selected month planned hours**
- member column totals vs **selected month capacity**
### Requirement: Color usage policy
**Original behavior:** broad RED/YELLOW/GREEN/GRAY usage in many cells.
**Updated behavior:** minimal red/amber/neutral policy with status emphasis on summary edges.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
# Project-Month Plan Specification
## Overview
This capability defines explicit manager-entered monthly planning per project.
It replaces derived monthly budget assumptions and becomes the planning source of truth for allocation variance.
## ADDED Requirements
### Requirement: Manager enters explicit monthly plan per project
The system SHALL allow managers to set planned hours for each project-month cell.
#### Scenario: Set monthly plan across multiple months
- **GIVEN** project `PROJ-001` has `approved_estimate = 3000`
- **WHEN** manager sets Jan=1200, Feb=1400, Mar=400
- **THEN** the system stores those exact values
- **AND** no derived monthly average is applied
#### Scenario: Edit monthly plan cell inline
- **GIVEN** a month-plan grid cell contains 1200
- **WHEN** manager edits the cell to 1100 and commits
- **THEN** the system persists 1100
- **AND** reconciliation status recalculates immediately
### Requirement: Reconcile month-plan sum against lifecycle approved estimate
The system SHALL compute reconciliation status per project based on:
`sum(non-null monthly planned hours)` vs `approved_estimate`.
#### Scenario: OVER reconciliation
- **GIVEN** `approved_estimate = 3000`
- **AND** month-plan sum is 3200
- **THEN** status is `OVER`
#### Scenario: UNDER reconciliation
- **GIVEN** `approved_estimate = 3000`
- **AND** month-plan sum is 2800
- **THEN** status is `UNDER`
#### Scenario: MATCH reconciliation
- **GIVEN** `approved_estimate = 3000`
- **AND** month-plan sum is 3000
- **THEN** status is `MATCH`
### Requirement: Preserve blank month semantics
The planning grid SHALL keep unset months visually blank and semantically distinct from explicit zero.
#### Scenario: Blank remains blank
- **GIVEN** no plan exists for April
- **WHEN** manager views planning grid
- **THEN** April cell is blank (no `0` shown)
#### Scenario: Clear cell sets blank semantics
- **GIVEN** a month cell has planned value
- **WHEN** manager clears the cell and commits
- **THEN** the month is stored as blank/unset semantics
- **AND** planning UI displays blank
### Requirement: Allocation variance uses blank plan as zero
For allocation variance computation only, missing month plan SHALL be treated as planned `0`.
#### Scenario: Allocate against blank plan month
- **GIVEN** no plan is set for selected month
- **AND** project allocations total 40h
- **WHEN** variance is computed
- **THEN** planned value used is 0
- **AND** row variance is +40
- **AND** allocation operation remains allowed
### Requirement: Grid-first planning interaction
Project-month planning SHALL be managed in a grid-first interface.
#### Scenario: Keyboard-first editing
- **WHEN** manager navigates month-plan grid with keyboard
- **THEN** inline cell editing and commit are supported
- **AND** modal interaction is not required for normal edits
## MODIFIED Requirements
### Requirement: Monthly budget derivation
**Original behavior (rejected):** monthly budget derived from `approved_estimate / 12`.
**Updated behavior:** monthly plan values are explicit manager-entered project-month values; no derivation formula is used for planning behavior.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
# Resource Allocation - Delta Specification
This delta documents required updates to existing resource allocation behavior for fidelity with explicit month planning.
## MODIFIED Requirements
### Requirement: Month execution comparison target
**Original behavior:** month execution was compared against derived or lifecycle assumptions.
**Updated behavior:** selected month project allocation is compared against explicit project-month planned hours.
#### Scenario: Compare row total to month plan
- **GIVEN** selected month plan for project is 1200h
- **AND** project allocations total 1300h
- **THEN** project row variance is +100h
- **AND** row status is `OVER`
#### Scenario: Blank month plan comparison
- **GIVEN** selected month has no plan value set
- **AND** project allocations total 50h
- **THEN** comparison target is 0h
- **AND** row status is `OVER`
- **AND** allocation remains allowed
### Requirement: Bulk allocation behavior
**Original behavior:** all-or-nothing transaction semantics.
**Updated behavior:** valid items SHALL be saved even if some items fail.
#### Scenario: Partial bulk success
- **WHEN** 10 allocation items are submitted and 2 fail validation
- **THEN** 8 valid items are persisted
- **AND** failed items return per-index validation errors
- **AND** response includes summary created/failed counts
### Requirement: Untracked execution semantics
**Original behavior:** untracked support was ambiguous/incomplete.
**Updated behavior:** `team_member_id = null` is valid and treated as untracked effort.
#### Scenario: Untracked counted in project, excluded from capacity
- **WHEN** untracked allocation exists for selected month
- **THEN** project totals include it
- **AND** member capacity/utilization computations exclude it

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
# Untracked Allocation Specification
## Overview
This capability supports external/unassigned effort by allowing allocations without a team member association.
## ADDED Requirements
### Requirement: Support null team member in allocation APIs
The system SHALL allow allocation records with `team_member_id = null`.
#### Scenario: Create untracked allocation
- **GIVEN** user has allocation create permission
- **WHEN** POST /api/allocations with `team_member_id = null`
- **THEN** allocation is created successfully
#### Scenario: Bulk create with mixed tracked/untracked
- **GIVEN** a bulk payload contains tracked and untracked entries
- **WHEN** POST /api/allocations/bulk is executed
- **THEN** untracked entries with valid data are processed successfully
### Requirement: Include untracked in project totals
Untracked hours SHALL contribute to project-level and grand totals.
#### Scenario: Project total includes untracked
- **GIVEN** project has tracked 80h and untracked 20h in selected month
- **WHEN** project row total is computed
- **THEN** row total is 100h
### Requirement: Exclude untracked from member capacity metrics
Untracked allocations SHALL NOT contribute to any team member utilization/capacity variance.
#### Scenario: Member utilization ignores untracked
- **GIVEN** selected month has untracked allocations
- **WHEN** member column totals and capacity variance are computed
- **THEN** untracked rows are excluded from member computations
### Requirement: Present untracked in execution grid
The allocation grid SHALL expose untracked as a first-class execution bucket.
#### Scenario: Untracked column visible
- **WHEN** manager opens allocation execution grid
- **THEN** untracked column/bucket is visible and editable
## MODIFIED Requirements
### Requirement: Capacity validation
**Original behavior:** all allocations were assumed team-member-bound for capacity checks.
**Updated behavior:** capacity validation is skipped for untracked allocations (`team_member_id = null`).

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
# Tasks: Enhanced Allocation Fidelity
## Summary
| Workstream | Status | Progress |
|------------|--------|----------|
| Artifact Fidelity Alignment | ✅ Complete | 100% |
| Project-Month Plan Capability | ⚪ Not Started | 0% |
| Allocation Grid Fidelity | ⚪ Not Started | 0% |
| Untracked + Partial Bulk Hardening | ⚪ Not Started | 0% |
| Reporting-Ready Contracts | ⚪ Not Started | 0% |
| Verification & Regression | ⚪ Not Started | 0% |
---
## 0. Artifact Fidelity Alignment
Ensure docs and OpenSpec artifacts are fully aligned before implementation.
### Phase 1: Artifact Updates
- [x] 0.1 Update decision log with model and rules
- [x] canonical 3-surface 0.2 Update proposal to remove derived monthly budget assumption
- [x] 0.3 Update design with explicit project-month planx] 0 architecture
- [x] 0.4 Update monthly-budget spec to explicit planning semantics
- [x] 0.5 Update allocation-indicators spec to red/amber/neutral policy
- [x] 0.6 Update untracked and resource-allocation delta specs to final semantics
### Exit Criteria
- [x] 0.7 No artifact references `approved_estimate / 12` as planning behavior
- [x] 0.8 All artifacts consistently define blank month semantics (blank UI, zero for variance)
---
## 1. Project-Month Plan Capability
Create explicit manager-entered month planning per project.
### Phase 1: Tests (RED)
- [ ] 1.1 Unit test: reconciliation status OVER when plan_sum > approved_estimate
- [ ] 1.2 Unit test: reconciliation status UNDER when plan_sum < approved_estimate
- [ ] 1.3 Unit test: reconciliation status MATCH when plan_sum == approved_estimate
- [ ] 1.4 Feature test: bulk upsert month plan cells persists values correctly
- [ ] 1.5 Feature test: clearing month plan cell preserves blank semantics
- [ ] 1.6 Feature test: blank month plan remains blank in response payload
- [ ] 1.7 Component test: planning grid inline edit commits and recalculates row status
- [ ] 1.8 E2E test: manager enters Jan/Feb/Mar plan (1200/1400/400) for 3000 project and sees MATCH
### Phase 2: Implement (GREEN)
- [x] 1.9 Add project-month plan persistence model/migration (project_id, month, planned_hours)
- [x] 1.10 Implement plan query endpoint for grid consumption
- [x] 1.11 Implement plan bulk upsert endpoint with clear-cell handling
- [ ] 1.12 Implement reconciliation calculator service and API exposure
- [ ] 1.13 Implement planning grid UI with keyboard-first inline editing
- [ ] 1.14 Ensure planning UI keeps blank cells blank (no implicit zero rendering)
### Phase 3: Refactor
- [ ] 1.15 Centralize reconciliation logic for API and reporting reuse
### Phase 4: Document
- [ ] 1.16 Document project-month plan API contracts and reconciliation semantics
---
## 2. Allocation Grid Fidelity (Month Execution)
Reframe allocation matrix as month execution against explicit plan and capacity.
### Phase 1: Tests (RED)
- [ ] 2.1 Unit test: row variance uses selected month planned value
- [ ] 2.2 Unit test: blank month plan treated as zero for row variance
- [ ] 2.3 Unit test: column variance uses member month capacity
- [ ] 2.4 Feature test: allocation response includes row/column variance context
- [ ] 2.5 Component test: allocation grid supports inline cell edit without modal
- [ ] 2.6 Component test: status placement on row/column summary edges only
- [ ] 2.7 E2E test: over-plan row displays red OVER status
- [ ] 2.8 E2E test: under-plan row displays amber UNDER status
### Phase 2: Implement (GREEN)
- [ ] 2.9 Remove derived monthly budget logic from allocation surface
- [ ] 2.10 Implement row variance against explicit month plan
- [ ] 2.11 Implement column variance against member capacity
- [ ] 2.12 Convert allocation UI to grid-first editing workflow
- [ ] 2.13 Keep modal only as optional fallback (not primary flow)
- [ ] 2.14 Apply minimal visual policy: red/amber/neutral with text labels
### Phase 3: Refactor
- [ ] 2.15 Extract shared variance calculation utilities
### Phase 4: Document
- [ ] 2.16 Document variance formulas and status placement rules
---
## 3. Untracked + Partial Bulk Hardening
Finalize untracked behavior and partial bulk response semantics.
### Phase 1: Tests (RED)
- [ ] 3.1 Feature test: single create accepts null team_member_id
- [ ] 3.2 Feature test: bulk create accepts mixed tracked/untracked payload
- [ ] 3.3 Feature test: untracked included in project/grand totals
- [ ] 3.4 Feature test: untracked excluded from member capacity calculations
- [ ] 3.5 Feature test: partial bulk persists valid rows and returns per-index failures
- [ ] 3.6 E2E test: untracked column allows inline allocation entry
### Phase 2: Implement (GREEN)
- [ ] 3.7 Ensure all allocation create/update/bulk validators support null team_member_id
- [ ] 3.8 Ensure capacity/utilization paths exclude null team_member_id
- [ ] 3.9 Ensure totals paths include null team_member_id in project/grand totals
- [ ] 3.10 Return deterministic partial bulk response contract (data/failed/summary)
### Phase 3: Refactor
- [ ] 3.11 Consolidate untracked filtering/scoping in one query abstraction
### Phase 4: Document
- [ ] 3.12 Document untracked semantics and partial bulk contract
---
## 4. Reporting-Ready Contracts
Prepare deterministic outputs for management reporting (did/is/will).
### Phase 1: Tests (RED)
- [ ] 4.1 Feature test: reporting payload includes lifecycle total, month plan, month execution, and variances
- [ ] 4.2 Feature test: historical/current/future month slices are consistent
### Phase 2: Implement (GREEN)
- [ ] 4.3 Expose report-oriented aggregate endpoint(s) for member and project views
- [ ] 4.4 Ensure response explicitly distinguishes blank plan vs explicit zero
### Phase 3: Document
- [ ] 4.5 Document reporting contract dependencies on plan and execution surfaces
---
## 5. Verification & Regression Gates
### Phase 1: Verification
- [ ] 5.1 Run full backend unit + feature test suite
- [ ] 5.2 Run frontend component test suite for planning/allocation grids
- [ ] 5.3 Run E2E flows for planning -> allocation -> variance visibility
- [ ] 5.4 Verify login/team-member/project baseline flows unaffected
### Phase 2: Quality Gates
- [ ] 5.5 Confirm no implementation path uses derived `approved_estimate / 12`
- [ ] 5.6 Confirm `projects.forecasted_effort` is not used in this workflow
- [ ] 5.7 Confirm all statuses follow red/amber/neutral policy
- [ ] 5.8 Confirm every completed task has mapped passing automated tests