ASG_Framework/ASG_Framework.md

# Agile + Spec Driven Development + GitOps Documentation Framework

This document defines the documentation framework for a software project. It establishes a structured approach to creating, maintaining, and evolving technical documentation in alignment with GitOps principles—ensuring that documentation is versioned, auditable, and continuously validated alongside the codebase.

---

## The ASG Framework: Eight Pillars of Documentation

| Document | Purpose | Primary Audience | Format / Content | Example (SaaS Context) | Measurement (KPI) |
|----------|---------|-----------------|------------------|------------------------|-------------------|
| **Requirements** | Capture the **business intent** — why we're building this and what success looks like. Defines boundaries and user-visible outcomes. | Stakeholders, Product Owners, Lead Developers | User stories, PRDs, acceptance criteria, non-functional constraints. | "System must process tabular data from Julia to SvelteKit UI with <200ms latency for 5-member teams." | 95% of requests complete <200ms (synthetic monitoring). |
| **Solution Design** | Translate requirements into an **viable solution** — how the system solves the user problem. Defines approach, components, and trade-offs before technical details. | Product Owners, Architects, Developers | Problem decomposition, solution approach, alternatives considered, high-level component diagram, decision rationale. | "Problem: Users need to compare wines. Solution: Build a comparison table with filtering, sorting, and visual comparison. Components: Data layer (Wine API), UI layer (Table component), Logic layer (Filter/Sort engine)." | 100% of user problems mapped to solution components before spec writing. |
| **Specification** | The **technical contract** — precise rules for inputs, outputs, and data shape. Ensures consistency across dev and test. | Developers, QA Engineers, CI/CD pipelines | OpenAPI, Protobuf, AsyncAPI. Endpoint definitions, schemas, error codes. | `contract.yaml` defining a NATS subject that accepts Arrow streams with snake_case headers. | 100% of messages validated against spec (CI block rate). |
| **UI Specification** | The **design contract** — precise rules for UI components, interactions, and visual patterns. Ensures consistency across design and implementation. | Product Designers, Frontend Developers, QA Engineers | Component libraries, style guides, interaction specs, design tokens. | Atomic design system with Figma tokens synced to CSS variables. | 100% of UI components match design spec (visual regression tests). |
| **Walkthrough** | The **end-to-end trace** — maps the entire system flow from startup to cycle completion. Provides a "big picture" view that validates solution design before technical specification is locked. | Product Owners, Architects, Developers | End-to-end user journey, sequence diagrams, state machine diagrams. Explicitly links to specification.md and ui-specification.md. | "User logs in → selects wine → edits details → saves → backend validates against spec → UI updates with error states." | 100% of user journeys traced across all layers before implementation starts. |

| **Implementation** | The **real code** — business logic, helpers, tests, configs. Where design becomes executable. | Developers, Code Reviewers | Source code, README.md, unit tests, setup scripts. | Julia function for matrix calculation + SvelteKit component rendering table. | >80% unit test coverage, <5% drift from spec. |
| **Validation** | The **enforcer** — ensures implementation matches the spec. Blocks drift and human error. | Automation servers, QA, Lead Developers | CI jobs, contract tests, linting, integration checks. | CI job rejects PR with camelCase field not allowed by YAML spec. | <1% of PRs bypass validation gates. |
| **Runbook** | The **operational manual** — how the system lives in production, scales, and recovers. Guides on-call engineers. | DevOps, SREs, On-call Developers | K8s manifests, Helm charts, Markdown guides. Deployment, scaling, backup/restore, troubleshooting. | GitOps manifest ensuring 6 Julia replicas restart if memory >80%. | MTTR <15 minutes for P1 incidents. |

---

## Detailed Document Descriptions

### 1. Requirements 
`requirements.md`

**Purpose**: Capture the *business intent* — why we're building this and what success looks like. Defines boundaries and user-visible outcomes.

**Why It Matters**:
- Aligns engineering efforts with business goals
- Provides a north star for feature development
- Establishes acceptance criteria before implementation begins
- Creates a contract between product, engineering, security, and operations.

**Content Guidelines**:
- User stories with clear acceptance criteria (As a X, I want Y so that Z)
- Functional Requirements Documents with clear success metrics and KPIs.
- Non-Functional Requirements covering performance, scalability, availability, reliability, and privacy.
- Boundary definitions that state what is in scope and out of scope.
- Security requirements including threat model outcomes, authentication and authorization expectations, data classification, encryption requirements, and compliance controls.
- Observability requirements specifying required telemetry, metrics, traces, logs, alerting thresholds, and retention policies.
- Traceability Rule: Requirements must be self-contained (no cross-references to other docs as justification), but must include IDs (e.g., FR-001) so downstream artifacts (spec, UI spec, architecture) can trace back. All downstream documents MUST cite requirement IDs, but requirements themselves stand alone.

**Best Practices**:
- Link each requirement to a measurable KPI
- Keep requirements testable and verifiable
- Maintain backward compatibility with existing requirements
- Review and update requirements as business context changes

---

### 2. Solution Design
`solution-design.md`

**Purpose**: Translate requirements into an *viable solution* — how the system solves the user problem. Defines approach, components, and trade-offs before technical details.

**Why It Matters**:
- Prevents technical-first thinking that skips design decisions
- Ensures the solution addresses the actual user problem, not just requirements
- Enables architects to evaluate alternatives before committing to technical details
- Creates alignment between product, design, and engineering on the approach
- Provides a reference for evaluating specification choices against intended solution

**Content Guidelines**:
- Problem decomposition: Break down the user problem into smaller, solvable pieces
- Solution approach: Describe the high-level approach (e.g., "Use event sourcing for audit trail", "Implement caching layer for performance")
- Alternatives considered: Document at least 2-3 alternative approaches with rationale for why they were rejected
- High-level component diagram: Show major components and their relationships (not technical details, just the big picture)
- Decision rationale: Explain why each major decision was made (e.g., "Chose NATS over Kafka for simpler ops", "Used server-side rendering for SEO")
- Risk assessment: Identify potential risks and how they will be mitigated
- Traceability: Link each solution component to specific requirement ID(s) (e.g., FR-001, NFR-201) that it addresses

**Best Practices**:
- Write solution design from the user's perspective first, then justify technical choices
- Keep it high-level—avoid technical specifics (API endpoints, data schemas, etc.)
- Use diagrams that are easy to update (Mermaid.js)
- Document trade-off decisions explicitly
- Review solution design against requirements to verify completeness
- Get sign-off from product, architecture, and engineering before moving to specification

**Gap-Check Question**: Does the Solution Design clearly explain how the system solves the user problem, not just what it does?

**Example Gap**: Requirements say "users can compare wines", but solution design only mentions "wine comparison API" without explaining how users will actually use the comparison feature.

---

### 3. Specification
`specification.md`
**Purpose**: The *technical contract* — precise rules for inputs, outputs, and data shape. Ensures consistency across dev and test.

**Why It Matters**:
- Prevents implementation drift between components
- Enables contract testing in CI/CD pipelines
- Provides a single source of truth for data structures
- Facilitates integration between teams
- Enables traceability from business requirements to technical implementation

**Content Guidelines**:
- API endpoint definitions (methods, paths, parameters)
- Request/response schemas (JSON, XML, Protobuf, AsyncAPI)
- Error codes and their meanings
- Data validation rules and constraints
- Rate limiting and quota definitions
- Each specification item must cite the specific requirement ID(s) from requirements.md (for example, FR-001, NFR-201). Link each endpoint, schema, validation rule, error case, etc to the exact requirement(s) it implements or satisfies.

**Best Practices**:
- Use formal specification languages (OpenAPI 3.0+, AsyncAPI)
- Version specifications alongside code
- Generate client SDKs from specifications
- Block CI on specification violations
- Document edge cases and error scenarios

---

### 4. UI Specification
`ui-specification.md`

**Purpose**: The *design contract* — precise rules for UI components, interactions, and visual patterns. Ensures consistency across design and implementation.

**Why It Matters**:
- Prevents visual inconsistency across the application
- Enables design system scalability and maintainability
- Provides a single source of truth for UI components and interactions
- Facilitates collaboration between designers and developers
- Enables traceability from business requirements to UI implementation

**Content Guidelines**:
- Component specifications (atomic design principles)
- Style guide (colors, typography, spacing, icons)
- Interaction patterns (animations, transitions, states)
- Design tokens (CSS variables, Figma tokens)
- Accessibility standards (WCAG compliance)
- Responsive design breakpoints and layouts
- Each UI specification artifact must cite the specific requirement ID(s) from requirements.md (for example FR-001, NFR-201) and/or the exact specification ID(s) or spec path(s) from specification.md that it implements or depends on.

**Best Practices**:
- Use design systems with versioned component libraries
- Sync design tokens from Figma to CSS variables automatically
- Document component states (normal, hover, disabled, error)
- Include accessibility requirements for each component
- Create visual regression tests for critical UI flows
- Version UI specifications alongside code

---

### 5. Walkthrough
`walkthrough.md`

**Purpose**: The *end-to-end trace* — maps the entire system flow from startup to cycle completion, incorporating both internal logic and external interactions. Provides a "big picture" view that aligns users and developers, validating the solution design before technical specification is locked.

**Unified Lifecycle Review**
The walkthrough functions as a collaborative audit, mapping the proposed solution directly onto your workflow to ensure a shared "single source of truth." It synchronizes the user's operational needs with the developer's technical implementation.

**For the User: Validating Operational Utility**
- **Visual Fidelity**: Concrete demonstration of the UI and user-facing components
- **Workflow Integration**: Clear mapping of how the tool fits into existing day-to-day operations
- **Operational Control**: Practical exposure to system controls and interaction patterns
- **Outcome Verification**: Direct observation of the system's outputs and deliverables
- **Impact Assessment**: Data-driven evaluation of the solution's ROI and efficiency gains
- **Expectation Alignment**: Early discovery of discrepancies between intended functionality and actual experience

**For the Developer: Aligning Architecture with Reality**
- **Requirement Validation**: Confirming the solution satisfies core business objectives
- **Impact Analysis**: Assessing the solution's real-world behavioral performance
- **Knowledge Synthesis**: Identifying disconnects between domain intent and technical interpretation
- **Specification Refinement**: Spotting missing technical dependencies or edge cases
- **System Harmony**: Observing how the technical workflow and the user process interleave
- **Code-to-Process Mapping**: Refining abstraction layers to better reflect the user's actual sequence of events

**Why It Matters**:
- Serves as a single source of truth for system behavior, bridging user experience and technical implementation
- Validates that all components (UI, API, backend logic) work together cohesively before implementation begins
- Exposes solution design gaps and integration risks early in the design phase
- Aligns stakeholders (product, design, development) on the complete user journey
- Provides a reference for verifying implementation against intended behavior and for tracing requirements through to architecture

**Content Guidelines**:
- End-to-end user journey from system startup to task completion
- External interactions (user actions, API calls, third-party integrations)
- Internal flow (state transitions, business logic, data transformations)
- Error paths and edge cases with their handling
- Sequence diagrams showing request/response patterns across all layers
- State machine diagrams for complex workflows
- Each major walkthrough step must cite the exact specification ID(s) or spec path(s) in specification.md and/or the UI‑spec artifact ID(s) or path(s) in ui-specification.md that it implements or depends on.

**Best Practices**:
- Write walkthroughs from the user's perspective first, then trace the technical implementation
- Include concrete examples with realistic data values
- Link each step to its corresponding specification and UI spec sections
- Document failure modes and recovery paths
- Keep walkthroughs updated as requirements evolve
- Review walkthroughs against the solution design to verify completeness

---

### 6. Implementation

**Purpose**: The *real code* — business logic, helpers, tests, configs. Where design becomes executable.

**Why It Matters**:
- This is the actual artifact that runs in production
- Code is the ultimate source of truth (when it matches spec)
- Tests validate correctness and prevent regressions
- Configuration files define runtime behavior

**Content Guidelines**:
- Business logic implementation
- Helper functions and utilities
- Unit and integration tests
- Configuration files (YAML, JSON, environment)
- Setup and development scripts
- Code organization and module structure

**Best Practices**:
- Follow consistent code style and conventions
- Write tests before or alongside implementation (TDD/BDD)
- Document complex logic with inline comments
- Keep configuration externalized and versioned
- Use type annotations where applicable

---

### 7. Validation
`validation.md`

**Purpose**: The *enforcer* — ensures implementation matches the spec. Blocks drift and human error.

**Why It Matters**:
- Prevents breaking changes from reaching production
- Catches specification violations early in the CI pipeline
- Maintains data integrity and API consistency
- Reduces manual QA effort through automation

**Content Guidelines**:
- CI/CD pipeline configurations
- Contract testing scripts
- Linting rules and configurations
- Integration test suites
- Schema validation jobs
- Security scanning and audit jobs
- Each validation must include explicit references to requirements.md (e.g., FR-001, NFR-201), specification.md (exact spec IDs or paths — API contracts, data schemas, e.g., sections 3.1, 4.2), and ui-specification.md (components, interactions, visual states, e.g., sections 15.1, 15.3) as applicable.

**Best Practices**:
- Fail CI on specification violations
- Run validation jobs on every commit and PR
- Use automated code review tools
- Maintain validation job health dashboard
- Document validation failure remediation steps

---

### 8. Runbook
`runbook.md`

**Purpose**: The *operational manual* — how the system lives in production, scales, and recovers. Guides on-call engineers.

**Why It Matters**:
- Reduces Mean Time To Recovery (MTTR) for incidents
- Provides step-by-step guidance for common issues
- Documents scaling and deployment procedures
- Ensures operational knowledge is not siloed

**Content Guidelines**:
- Deployment procedures (manual and automated)
- Scaling instructions (horizontal/vertical)
- Backup and restore procedures
- Troubleshooting guides for common issues
- Runbook entries for specific error codes
- Contact information and escalation paths
- Explicit references to [`specification.md`](specification.md) (API contracts, data schemas, specific endpoint sections)
- Explicit references to [`ui-specification.md`](ui-specification.md) (components, interactions, visual states, specific component sections)

**Best Practices**:
- Write runbooks for every P1/P2 incident
- Include exact commands and configuration snippets
- Test runbooks periodically (chaos engineering)
- Link runbook entries to relevant documentation
- Keep runbooks updated when system changes

---

## How to Use This Approach Effectively

### 1. Start with Requirements

Before writing any code or documentation, establish clear requirements. Ask:
- What business problem are we solving?
- How will we measure success?
- What are the non-negotiable constraints?

**Action**: Create a `docs/requirements/` directory and start with `PRD.md` and `KPIs.md`.

### 2. Define Solution Design

Once requirements are stable, translate them into an viable solution. This ensures the technical approach solves the user problem, not just requirements.

**Action**: Create `docs/solution-design/` with `solution-design.md`, problem decomposition, alternatives considered, high-level component diagram, and decision rationale.

### 3. Define the Specification

With solution design in place, define the technical specification. This becomes the contract for implementation.

**Action**: Create `docs/specification/` with `contract.yaml` (or appropriate format) and `error-codes.md`.

### 4. Define UI Specification Early

Create UI specifications before implementing frontend components. This ensures design consistency and provides a contract for implementation.

**Action**: Create `docs/ui-specification/` with `component-library.md`, `style-guide.md`, and `design-tokens.json`.

### 5. Create Walkthroughs Early

As soon as the UI specification is defined, create walkthroughs. This helps identify gaps in the flow and provides onboarding material. The walkthrough should be a single source of truth that explicitly links to specification.md and ui-specification.md.

**Action**: Create `docs/walkthrough/` with `TOUR.md`, sequence diagrams, and cross-references to specification and UI spec sections.

### 6. Implement with Validation in Mind

Write implementation code that adheres to the specification. Build validation into the CI pipeline from day one.

**Action**: Ensure test files are co-located with implementation and run on every commit.

### 7. Automate Validation

Build automated validation that runs in CI/CD. This ensures spec compliance and prevents drift.

**Action**: Configure CI jobs to validate against specification and block PRs on violations.

### 8. Document Operations from Day One

Create runbook entries as soon as deployment procedures are established. Update them when incidents occur.

**Action**: Create `docs/runbook/` with entries for deployment, scaling, and common issues.

---

## The Gap-Check Process

Since all docs defined in the ASG Framework are **living documents** that evolve throughout the project lifecycle, this Gap-Check process ensures each documentation stage validates the previous one before moving forward.

| Stage Transition | Goal | Gap-Check Question | Example Gap | Result |
|------------------|------|-------------------|-------------|--------|
| **Requirements → Solution Design** | Turn a "Wish" into a "Solution" | Does the Solution Design clearly explain how the system solves the user problem, not just what it does? | Requirements say "users can compare wines", but solution design only mentions "wine comparison API" without explaining how users will actually use the comparison feature | Add UI flow and user interaction patterns to the solution design |
| **Solution Design → Specification** | Turn a "Solution" into a "Contract" | Does the Specification define all technical details that the solution approach requires? | Solution design says "use caching for performance", but Specification doesn't define cache invalidation strategy | Add cache TTL, invalidation rules, and error handling to Specification |
| **Specification → UI Specification** | Turn a "Rule" into a "Button" | Does the UI Specification expose all the data and states defined in the Specification? | Specification says device must "Handshake" within 5 seconds, but UI Specification has no connection status indicator | Add a `Connection Status` component to UI Specification |
| **UI Specification → Walkthrough** | Turn "Screens" into a "Story" | Does the Walkthrough reflect the complete flow including error states and timing? | Walkthrough shows "Success" screen, but Specification says backend process takes 2 minutes | Add a `Processing` state to UI Specification and `JobStatus` field to Specification |
| **Walkthrough → Specification** | Turn the "Story" into "Rules" | Does the Specification cover all the behaviors defined in the Walkthrough? | Walkthrough shows 10 IoT sensors sending real-time updates, but Specification only defines REST API | Add NATS/MQTT protocol definitions to Specification |

### Why Gap-Checks Matter

- **Prevent rework**: Catch missing requirements before coding begins
- **Ensure completeness**: Verify all scenarios are covered across all layers
- **Validate feasibility**: Confirm technical approach supports the intended user flow
- **Maintain alignment**: Keep all stakeholders (product, design, dev) on the same page

### How to Run Gap-Checks

1. **Requirements Review**: After writing requirements, ask "What happens if X?" for each user story
2. **Solution Design Review**: After writing solution design, verify every requirement is addressed by at least one solution component with a corresponding requirement ID reference
3. **Specification Review**: After writing the spec, verify every requirement has at least one rule with a corresponding requirement ID reference
4. **UI Specification Review**: After writing UI Specification, verify every spec rule has at least one UI representation with a corresponding requirement ID reference
5. **Walkthrough Review**: After writing walkthrough, verify every UI step has a corresponding backend flow

---

## The Pre-Code Debugging Habit

This habit ensures that each documentation stage is complete and validated before moving forward. These checklists serve as mental guards against building features that don't meet the requirements or architecture.

| Stage | Debug Checklist | Why It Matters |
|-------|-----------------|----------------|
| **Requirements** | If I can't state the Value, I'm building a feature nobody needs. | Clarifies the business impact before technical discussion begins |
| **Solution Design** | If I can't Imagine the solution, I'm building without a compass. | Ensures the technical approach solves the user problem before spec writing |
| **Specification** | If I can't write a Rule with a requirement ID reference, I haven't thought the logic through. | Ensures traceability from technical rules to business requirements |
| **UI Specification** | If I can't See it with a requirement ID reference, the user has no way to trigger the logic. | Ensures traceability from UI elements to business requirements |
| **Walkthrough** | If I can't Trace the full flow, the system has a 'broken bridge'. | Identifies gaps between components before implementation begins |

**How to Use This Habit:**

1. **Before writing each doc**, run through the checklist for that stage
2. **Before moving to the next doc**, run through the checklist for the current stage
3. **When reviewing docs**, use the checklist to verify completeness

This habit turns documentation into a self-validating process—each stage catches gaps from the previous one before they become bugs in production.

---

## GitOps Integration

This documentation framework aligns with GitOps principles:

| GitOps Principle | Documentation Alignment |
|------------------|------------------------|
| **Versioned** | All documentation lives in git, with history and audit trail |
| **Declarative** | Specifications and architecture are declarative contracts |
| **Automated** | Validation jobs automate spec compliance checks |
| **Self-Service** | Walkthroughs and runbooks enable self-service onboarding and operations |
| **Observability** | KPIs and metrics are defined for each documentation artifact |

---

## Metrics and Continuous Improvement

Each documentation artifact has associated KPIs. Track these to ensure quality:

| Document | KPI | Target |
|----------|-----|--------|
| Requirements | Requirement coverage | 100% of features have associated requirements |
| Solution Design | Solution completeness | 100% of user problems mapped to solution components before spec writing |
| Specification | Specification compliance rate | 100% of messages validate against spec |
| UI Specification | UI spec compliance | 100% of components match design spec (visual regression tests) |
| Architecture | Decision documentation | 100% of major decisions logged with trade-offs |
| Walkthrough | New dev time-to-first-PR | <2 days from onboarding to first contribution |
| Implementation | Test coverage | >80% unit test coverage |
| Validation | Bypass rate | <1% of PRs bypass validation gates |
| Runbook | MTTR | <15 minutes for P1 incidents |

**Review Cadence**:
- Weekly: Review KPI dashboards and documentation gaps
- Monthly: Update documentation based on incident learnings
- Quarterly: Full framework review and improvement

---

## Template Examples

### Requirements Template

```markdown
# PRD: Feature Name

## 1. Business Context & Success Metrics
- Business Goal
- User Stories (with acceptance criteria)
- KPIs & Targets (e.g., "99.95% availability", "<200ms p95 latency")

## 2. Technical Boundaries
- In Scope
- Out of Scope
- Dependencies (e.g., "Requires Stripe API v2023-08")

## 3. Functional Requirements (FR)
- **FR-XXX**: [Requirement ID] - [Clear, testable functional requirement]
- **FR-XXX**: [Requirement ID] - [Clear, testable functional requirement]
- *Example: FR-001 - System shall allow users to invite teammates via email address*

## 4. Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs)
### 4.1 Performance & Scalability
- [e.g., Support 10K TPS, scale horizontally to 100 nodes]

### 4.2 Availability & Reliability
- [e.g., SLO: 99.9% monthly uptime, MTTR < 10min]

### 4.3 Privacy & Security
- Data Classification: [e.g., PII, PHI]
- Threat Model Outcomes: [e.g., "Mitigates replay attacks via nonce + timestamp"]
- Auth/Z Expectations: [e.g., RBAC with 3 roles: viewer, editor, admin]
- Encryption: [e.g., TLS 1.3+, AES-256 at rest]
- Compliance: [e.g., GDPR Art. 32, SOC2 Type II]

### 4.4 Observability & Telemetry
- Required Logs: [e.g., `user_id`, `request_id`, `status`, `latency_ms`]
- Critical Metrics: [e.g., `auth_failures_total`, `api_latency_seconds{quantile=0.99}`]
- Tracing: [e.g., Zipkin/B3 propagation, 10% sampling]
- Alerting: [e.g., `auth_failure_rate > 5%/min` triggers PagerDuty]
- Retention: [e.g., Logs: 30 days, Metrics: 1 year]

## 5. Acceptance Conditions
- [List verifiable conditions for sign-off, including validation gates]
```

### Solution Design Template

```markdown
# Solution Design: Feature Name

## 1. Problem Decomposition

Break down the user problem into smaller, solvable pieces.

| Problem | Description | User Impact |
|---------|-------------|-------------|
| [Problem ID] | Brief description of the problem | How this affects the user |

**Example**: 
- **P-001**: Users cannot compare multiple wines side-by-side → They must navigate between wine pages, losing context and making comparisons difficult

## 2. Solution Approach

Describe the high-level approach to solving the problem.

**Approach**: [e.g., "Implement a comparison table with filtering, sorting, and visual comparison features"]

**Key Principles**:
- [e.g., "Keep comparison data in memory for instant updates"]
- [e.g., "Use server-side rendering for SEO"]
- [e.g., "Support unlimited wine comparisons for power users"]

## 3. Alternatives Considered

Document at least 2-3 alternative approaches with rationale.

| Alternative | Pros | Cons | Decision |
|-------------|------|------|----------|
| Client-side comparison | Fast updates, no server load | Memory-intensive, no sharing | Rejected - memory constraints on mobile |
| Server-side comparison | Centralized, scalable | Latency, complex state sync | Accepted - matches performance requirements |
| Hybrid approach | Best of both worlds | Complex, hard to maintain | Rejected - over-engineering |

## 4. High-Level Component Diagram

```mermaid
%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#3b82f6'}}}%%
flowchart TD
    A[User] --> B[Comparison UI]
    B --> C[Comparison State]
    B --> D[Wine API]
    C --> D
```

**Component Descriptions**:
- **[Component Name]**: [Brief description of responsibilities and how it solves part of the problem]
  - Links to requirements: FR-001, NFR-201

## 5. Decision Rationale

Explain why each major decision was made.

| Decision | Rationale | Alternatives Rejected |
|----------|-----------|----------------------|
| Use WebSockets for real-time updates | Required for <100ms feedback | REST polling - too slow, too many requests |
| Store comparison list in localStorage | Allows offline comparison editing | Redux - overkill for this feature |
| Server-side rendering for comparison export | SEO for shared comparisons | Client-side rendering - no SEO benefit |

## 6. Risk Assessment

Identify potential risks and mitigation strategies.

| Risk | Impact | Probability | Mitigation |
|------|--------|-------------|------------|
| Performance degradation with >5 wines | High | Medium | Implement performance profiling, limit to 10 wines max |
| Race conditions in real-time updates | Medium | Low | Use optimistic updates with rollback |
| Memory leaks from comparison state | Medium | Medium | Implement cleanup on unmount, use weak references |

## 7. Requirements Traceability

Link each solution component to specific requirements.

| Solution Component | Requirement ID | Description |
|-------------------|----------------|-------------|
| Comparison table UI | FR-101 | Display wines in table format |
| Filtering | FR-102 | Filter wines by criteria |
| Sorting | FR-103 | Sort wines by any column |
| Real-time updates | NFR-201 | Updates appear within 100ms |
| Export comparison | FR-201 | Export comparison to PDF/CSV |


### Specification Template

```yaml
# contract.yaml
openapi: 3.0.0
info:
  title: NATSBridge API
  version: 1.0.0
  description: Technical specification with requirements traceability
paths:
  /api/v1/endpoint:
    post:
      requestBody:
        content:
          application/json:
            schema:
              $ref: '#/components/schemas/Request'
      responses:
        '200':
          description: Success
          content:
            application/json:
              schema:
                $ref: '#/components/schemas/Response'
      x-requirement-id: FR-001  # Reference to Requirements document
components:
  schemas:
    Request:
      type: object
      properties:
        data:
          type: string
          x-requirement-id: FR-002  # Reference to Requirements document
    Response:
      type: object
      properties:
        status:
          type: string
          x-requirement-id: FR-003  # Reference to Requirements document
```

### UI Specification Template

```markdown
# UI Specification: Component Name

## Component Overview
**Name**: [Component Name]
**Status**: [Draft/Approved/Deprecated]
**Version**: 1.0.0

## Requirements Traceability
| UI Element | Requirement ID | Description |
|------------|----------------|-------------|
| Login form | FR-001 | Username/password authentication |
| Sidebar menu | NFR-202 | Collapsible sidebar for usability |
| Wine table | FR-101 | Sortable, searchable inventory table |

## Design Tokens
- **Color**: `--color-primary`
- **Typography**: `--font-body`
- **Spacing**: `--spacing-md`

## Component States
| State | Description | Example | Requirement ID |
|-------|-------------|---------|----------------|
| Default | Normal state | `<Button />` | FR-001 |
| Hover | Mouse over | `<Button hover />` | NFR-201 |
| Disabled | Disabled state | `<Button disabled />` | NFR-203 |
| Error | Error state | `<Button error />` | EH-004 |

## Accessibility
- [ ] WCAG 2.1 AA compliant
- [ ] Keyboard navigation support
- [ ] Screen reader compatible

## Implementation
- Component file: `src/components/[Component].svelte`
- Test file: `src/components/[Component].test.js`
- Visual regression test: `tests/visual/[Component].spec.js`

## References
- Figma: [Link to design file]
- Storybook: [Link to component story]
- Requirements: [`docs/requirements.md`](../requirements.md)
```

### Architecture Template

```mermaid
%%{init: {'theme': 'base', 'themeVariables': {'primaryColor': '#3b82f6'}}}%%
flowchart TD
    A[Client] --> B[Caddy]
    B --> C[Node.js API]
    C --> D[Julia Worker]
    D --> E[NATS Cluster]
    E --> F[Storage]
    
    style A fill:#f9f9f9,stroke:#333
    style E fill:#e0e7ff,stroke:#3b82f6
```

**Specification Traceability:**
| Architecture Component | Specification Section | UI Specification Section | Requirement ID |
|------------------------|----------------------|--------------------------|----------------|
| NATS Bridge (smartsend) | specification.md:3.1 | - | FR-301, NFR-201 |
| Login Form | specification.md:10.1 | ui-specification.md:15.2.1 | FR-001, NFR-201 |
| Wine Inventory Table | specification.md:4.2 | ui-specification.md:15.3.3 | FR-101, NFR-205 |
| Sidebar Menu | specification.md:11.1 | ui-specification.md:15.3.2 | NFR-202 |

**Component Details:**
- **Caddy**: Static file serving (specification.md:2.2, ui-specification.md:15.1)
- **Node.js API**: NATS bridge client (specification.md:3.1)
- **Julia Worker**: Backend processing (specification.md:4.1)
- **NATS Cluster**: Message bus (specification.md:3.3)
- **Storage**: Data persistence (specification.md:5.1)

### Runbook Template

```markdown
# Runbook: Service Restart

**Severity**: P2
**Estimated Time**: 5 minutes

## Symptoms
- Service is unresponsive
- Health checks are failing

## Steps
1. SSH to the host
2. Run: `kubectl rollout restart deployment/natsbridge`
3. Monitor: `kubectl get pods -l app=natsbridge -w`

## Rollback
- Run: `kubectl rollout undo deployment/natsbridge`

## Post-Incident
- [ ] Review logs for root cause
- [ ] Update runbook if needed
```

---

## Conclusion

This ASG Documentation Framework ensures that documentation is:
- **Structured**: Nine distinct artifacts with clear purposes
- **Automated**: Validation and CI/CD integration
- **Versioned**: All documentation in git with history
- **Measurable**: KPIs for quality and effectiveness
- **Actionable**: Practical templates and examples

Use this framework as a living document—update it as your team's needs evolve.