spec(§1.6–1.9): outcomes, business scope, assumptions, business use cases BUC-1..5

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
2026-06-10 07:03:13 -07:00
parent 42dbc5048a
commit a68f59ac85
@@ -88,19 +88,150 @@ nothing built on top can ever actually launch.
### 1.6 Targeted Business Outcomes ### 1.6 Targeted Business Outcomes
<!-- §1.6 pending --> | Outcome | Success metric | Baseline → Target | Guardrail (must not regress) | How / when measured |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Merchants can exist on the platform | A real person can go from stranger to merchant-with-storefront, unaided | impossible → possible in every environment | No dark patterns at the door: no trial clock, no payment demand, no plan wall (OHM: Agency & Anti-Manipulation) | Walk the flow end-to-end in each environment at release |
| The product line is unblocked | Subsequent Features attach to a real account + storefront spine | everything mocked → nothing mocked | The spine doesn't need rework to host the next Feature (no throwaway auth/tenancy) | First post-MVP Feature builds on it without spine changes |
| Launching anywhere is routine | A fresh, empty environment reaches "first merchant signs up and creates the first storefront" through the product flows alone | folklore → documented, rehearsed gesture | Zero hand-seeded data in any environment | Bootstrap rehearsal executed on pre-prod, then prod, at release |
### 1.7 Scope (business) ### 1.7 Scope (business)
<!-- §1.7 pending --> - **In scope:** a person establishing an identity on the platform (joining and
returning); a merchant establishing their one storefront; the merchant
standing on a stable management surface for it; the platform being
bring-up-able from empty in every environment it runs in (local development,
pre-production, production).
- **Out of scope (later designs):** anything sold or bought — catalog, orders,
checkout, payments; the shopper-facing public storefront; teams/staff
(anyone besides the one merchant touching the storefront); plans, billing,
or any commercial relationship between merchant and platform; storefront
settings/management beyond simply *having* the surface.
- **Non-goals:** gating who may join (the prototype admitted users by
invitation; ecomm is an open product — anyone may become a merchant, and
re-introducing an admission gate is explicitly not pursued); supporting more
than one storefront per merchant *in this design* (the business wants the
door left open, not the capability now).
### 1.8 Assumptions · Constraints · Dependencies ### 1.8 Assumptions · Constraints · Dependencies
<!-- §1.8 pending --> - **Assumptions:**
- One storefront per merchant is the right *experience* bar for the MVP;
multiple-storefront merchants are a future need, not a current one. Risk
if wrong: an early merchant genuinely needs a second storefront — accepted;
the door is designed to stay open (§1.7, #1 acceptance).
- Merchants are reachable by email and will complete an email-based step to
join. Risk if wrong: an entry channel rethink — accepted at MVP scale.
- **Constraints:**
- OHM-groundedness is a charter constraint: entry must be honest — no
manufactured urgency, no data collected beyond need, no lock-in mechanics.
- The three environments are a constraint, not a stretch goal: Feature #1's
acceptance says no environment is "later".
- Wiggleverse engineering standards apply (handbook): provisioning and
deploy via flotilla (§8), secrets never in repos or transcripts (§6.3),
private repos by default (§5.5).
- **Dependencies:**
- **flotilla / launch-app** for environment provisioning and deploy (the
operator-run front door, handbook §8.5) — needed when the pre-prod and
prod environments are stood up.
- An **email delivery channel** for the entry step in real environments —
needed by the production-readiness slice (§7).
### 1.9 Business Use Cases ### 1.9 Business Use Cases
<!-- §1.9 pending --> **BUC-1 — As a merchant, I can establish my identity on the platform, so that I can begin doing business there.**
```gherkin
Scenario: BUC-1 — A stranger becomes known to the platform
Given a person who has never dealt with the platform
When they present themselves and prove who they are
Then the platform knows them as a returning individual from then on
And they were asked for nothing beyond what proving who they are required
```
```gherkin
Scenario: BUC-1a — A person who cannot prove who they are is not admitted as someone else
Given a person presenting an identity they cannot prove
When their proof fails
Then the platform does not mistake them for the claimed identity
And the genuine owner of that identity is unharmed
```
- **BUC-1 acceptance criteria:** the same person, returning later, is
recognized as the same merchant; two different people are never conflated;
no personal data beyond the minimum was demanded (OHM: Privacy & Data
Minimization).
**BUC-2 — As a returning merchant, I can resume my standing on the platform, so that my business presence persists beyond a single visit.**
```gherkin
Scenario: BUC-2 — A known merchant returns
Given a merchant the platform already knows
When they return and prove who they are
Then they resume exactly the standing they had same identity, same storefront
```
- **BUC-2 acceptance criteria:** returning costs only the proof-of-identity
step; nothing about their standing is lost or reset.
**BUC-3 — As a merchant, I can establish my storefront, so that my business has a presence of its own on the platform.**
```gherkin
Scenario: BUC-3 — A merchant claims their storefront
Given a merchant known to the platform who has no storefront yet
When they establish their storefront
Then the platform holds exactly one storefront that is theirs
And establishing it cost them nothing and committed them to nothing
```
```gherkin
Scenario: BUC-3a — One storefront is the bar
Given a merchant who already has their storefront
When they deal with the platform
Then they are never led toward acquiring a second one
```
- **BUC-3 acceptance criteria:** every merchant who completes the step has
exactly one storefront; no payment, plan, or commitment was demanded
(corpus: 14.01.0015, 14.01.0016); the platform's books would still be
correct if a merchant were someday allowed several (the 1-1 bar is an
experience rule, not a law of the data — Feature #1 constraint).
**BUC-4 — As a merchant, I can stand on a management surface for my storefront, so that everything I will later do for my business has a home.**
```gherkin
Scenario: BUC-4 — The merchant arrives at their storefront's home
Given a merchant with a storefront
When they return to the platform
Then they arrive directly at their storefront's management surface
And it is honestly empty it claims no capability that does not exist yet
```
- **BUC-4 acceptance criteria:** arrival is direct (no dead ends, no limbo —
a merchant *without* a storefront is guided to establish one instead, never
stranded); the surface carries the storefront's identity and nothing
fabricated.
**BUC-5 — As a platform operator, I can bring the platform to life in a fresh environment, so that merchants can be served there without any hand-built state.**
```gherkin
Scenario: BUC-5 — An empty environment reaches its first merchant
Given a brand-new environment with empty persistence
When the operator performs the documented bring-up gesture
And the first merchant walks the ordinary product flows
Then the environment serves that merchant a working storefront
And no data was placed by hand at any step
```
```gherkin
Scenario: BUC-5a — Bring-up is rehearsable
Given the bring-up gesture documented for one environment
When it is performed in the next environment (dev pre-prod prod)
Then it is the same gesture, and day-one production is simply the bootstrap state
```
- **BUC-5 acceptance criteria:** bring-up is a repeatable, documented gesture
(not folklore); it holds identically in local development, pre-production,
and production; the first merchant arrives through the product flows alone.
--- ---