# Ralph Loop Progress Log
# Each iteration appends its findings and decisions here.

---
## Iteration 1 — 2026-03-03

**Task:** Verify Phase 0 (Project Infrastructure)

**Verified phases:** Phase 0

**Method:** Checked each task's position in Phase 0 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/setup-tasks.md.

### Findings

**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS

| Task | Declared Dependencies | Scheduled at | All deps in earlier slots? |
|------|-----------------------|--------------|---------------------------|
| T-1  | None                  | Order 1      | ✓ (no deps) |
| T-2  | T-1                   | Order 2      | ✓ T-1 is Order 1 |
| T-4  | T-1, T-2              | Order 3      | ✓ T-1 (Order 1), T-2 (Order 2) |
| T-3  | T-1, T-2              | Order 3*     | ✓ T-1 (Order 1), T-2 (Order 2) |

**Completeness:** PASS — all four setup tasks (T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4) are accounted for in Phase 0.

**Parallelizability:** PASS — T-3 and T-4 have identical declared dependencies (T-1, T-2) and are marked as parallelizable with each other. This is correct.

**Minor prose inconsistency (not an ordering problem):** Phase 0's introductory sentence states "All setup tasks must complete before any user story work begins," but the same paragraph notes "T-3 can run in parallel with Phase 1." These two sentences contradict each other in plain language. The dependency-based analysis is correct: no user story has a declared dependency on T-3, so Phase 1 can proceed without T-3 being complete. The parenthetical note is accurate; the introductory sentence is overly broad. Not raising a question since this is a prose issue only and the implementation order is unambiguous.

**Verdict:** Phase 0 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.

---
## Iteration 3 — 2026-03-03

**Task:** Verify Phase 2 (Organizer Management & Event Lifecycle)

**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1, Phase 2

**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 2 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phases 0 and 1 are treated as already verified.

### Findings

**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS

| Story | Declared Dependencies | All deps in earlier phases? |
|-------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
| US-4  | US-1, T-4             | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-5  | US-1, T-4             | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-18 | US-1, T-4             | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-19 | US-1, T-4             | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-12 | US-1, T-4             | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-13 | US-1, T-4             | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |

**Completeness:** PASS — All six stories with dependencies satisfied by Phase 1 or earlier (and belonging to the organizer/lifecycle domain) are accounted for in Phase 2. No eligible story is missing.

Note: Several later-phase stories (US-6, US-8, US-10a, US-11, US-15, US-16, US-7, US-14, US-17) also have their declared dependencies satisfied by Phase 1 or earlier, but they are correctly grouped into later phases by functional domain (enhanced guest features, visual customization, PWA shell). This is a deliberate, documented grouping choice — not a scheduling error.

**Parallelizability:** PASS — All six Phase 2 stories declare only US-1 and T-4 as dependencies. None of them declare a dependency on any other Phase 2 story. They are structurally independent and can be worked on in parallel. The recommended within-phase order (US-5 first, since US-9 in Phase 3 depends on it) is an efficiency hint, not a structural constraint.

**Undeclared dependency observation (no violation):** US-4's ACs state the organizer view is "accessible from the event page" — this implies UX integration with US-2 at the view level. However, the organizer view can be implemented as a standalone route/endpoint independently of US-2's visual implementation, so the omission of US-2 from US-4's declared dependencies is defensible and consistent with Phase 2 placement. No ordering violation.

**Mermaid diagram consistency:** The diagram shows US-1 branching to all Phase 2 stories (US-4, US-5, US-12, US-13, US-18, US-19). T-4 is not shown as a direct arrow to these stories, but it is a transitive dependency via T-4 → US-1. The diagram caption notes "(and T-4 transitively)" — consistent with declared dependencies.

**Verdict:** Phase 2 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.

---
## Iteration 4 — 2026-03-03

**Task:** Verify Phase 3 (Enhanced Event Page Features)

**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3

**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 3 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phases 0–2 are treated as already verified.

### Findings

**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS

| Story | Declared Dependencies | All deps in earlier phases? |
|-------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
| US-6  | US-2, T-4             | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-8  | US-2, T-4             | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-9  | US-2, US-5, T-4       | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1; US-5 is Phase 2; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-10a | US-1, US-2, T-4      | ✓ US-1 and US-2 are Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-10b | US-10a               | US-10a is Phase 3 (same phase) — see parallelizability below |
| US-11  | US-2, T-4            | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |

**Completeness:** PASS — All six stories with dependencies satisfied by Phase 2 or earlier and belonging to the enhanced event-page domain are included in Phase 3. No eligible story appears to be missing.

**Parallelizability:** PASS (with one documented intra-phase sequential pair)

- US-6, US-8, US-11: mutually independent; no intra-phase dependencies. ✓
- US-10a: independent of US-6, US-8, US-11 within the phase. ✓
- US-10b → US-10a: **intra-phase dependency**. US-10b must follow US-10a. This forces sequential implementation of the pair within Phase 3. This is explicitly acknowledged in the spec: "US-10b: Must follow US-10a" and "US-10a → US-10b (sequential pair)" in the recommended order note. Not a violation — the constraint is documented and correct.
- US-9: independent of US-6, US-8, US-10a, US-10b, US-11 within Phase 3 (its cross-phase deps US-2 and US-5 are already satisfied). ✓

**Diagram consistency (minor observation, no ordering problem):** The Mermaid diagram shows only `US-2 → US-10a` for US-10a's dependencies. US-10a's declared dependencies include `US-1` in addition to US-2, but US-1 is a transitive prerequisite of US-2, so US-1 is reachable in the diagram via `US-1 → US-2 → US-10a`. This is a diagram simplification, not a missing dependency — the implementation order is unambiguous.

**Verdict:** Phase 3 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found. The US-10a → US-10b sequential constraint is known and documented.

---
## Iteration 5 — 2026-03-03

**Task:** Verify Phase 4 (Visual Customization)

**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4

**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 4 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phases 0–3 are treated as already verified.

### Findings

**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS

| Story | Declared Dependencies | All deps in earlier phases? |
|-------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
| US-15 | US-1, US-2, T-4       | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-16 | US-1, US-2, T-4       | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1; US-2 is Phase 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |

**Completeness:** PASS — both visual customization stories (US-15, US-16) are accounted for in Phase 4. No other story in the spec belongs to this domain without being included here.

**Parallelizability:** PASS — US-15 and US-16 share no declared dependency on each other. They are structurally independent and can be worked on in parallel. The recommended order (US-15 before US-16) is an efficiency hint (simpler story, no external API dependency, and the interaction with dark/light mode is easier to resolve first), not a structural constraint.

**Undeclared dependency observation (no violation):** US-15 and US-16 both state in their ACs "During event creation or editing (US-5)" — implying functional integration with the edit form from US-5. US-5 is not listed as a declared dependency for either story. This omission is defensible because:
1. The core functionality (selecting a theme or image during event creation) is implementable using the creation form from US-1 alone.
2. Phase 4 comes after Phase 2 where US-5 is implemented, so US-5 will be available in practice when US-15 and US-16 are worked on.
No ordering violation.

**Grouping note (no violation):** US-15 and US-16 have declared dependencies satisfied after Phase 1 (same as several Phase 3 stories). Their placement in Phase 4 rather than Phase 3 is a deliberate functional grouping decision — visual customization is a separate concern from enhanced event page features. This is consistent with the documented grouping rationale in the spec. No scheduling error.

**Verdict:** Phase 4 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.

---
## Iteration 6 — 2026-03-03

**Task:** Verify Phase 5 (App Shell & PWA)

**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, Phase 4, Phase 5

**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 5 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phases 0–4 are treated as already verified.

### Findings

**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS

| Story | Declared Dependencies | All deps in earlier phases? |
|-------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
| US-7  | None                  | ✓ (no deps) |
| US-14 | T-4                   | ✓ T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-17 | None                  | ✓ (no deps) |

**Completeness:** PASS — all three App Shell & PWA stories (US-7, US-14, US-17) are accounted for in Phase 5. No other story in the spec belongs to this domain without being included here.

**Parallelizability:** PASS — US-7, US-14, and US-17 share no declared dependencies on each other. They are structurally independent and can be worked on in parallel. The recommended within-phase order (US-17 → US-7 → US-14) is a practical sequencing hint, not a structural constraint.

**Undeclared dependency observations (no violations):**

- US-7's ACs reference US-1, US-3, and US-6 as sources of localStorage data (organizer tokens, RSVP records, bookmarks). None of these are declared dependencies. This is intentional and correct: US-7 can be implemented and passes acceptance in its empty state without those stories. The references are "practically useful after" notes, not structural prerequisites.
- US-7 AC 7 references US-12 and US-19 ("event no longer exists" handling) — not declared dependencies. US-7 can implement the error path even before US-12/US-19 are available; the condition simply won't be triggerable in testing until those stories are done. No violation.
- US-14 AC 7 references US-7 (manifest start URL points to `/`, which serves the local event overview). US-7 is not declared as a dependency of US-14. Defensible: the start URL can be set to `/` regardless of whether US-7 is implemented. No violation.
- US-17's notes state it "requires the frontend scaffold from T-4 (which includes T-1) to be practically implementable" but correctly omits T-4 from the declared dependencies (since US-17 has no structural gating on T-4 — it is a styling/CSS concern and the declared deps list only hard structural prerequisites). Consistent with how US-7's notes treat T-4 similarly.

**Phase 5 timing note (no violation):** The spec notes that US-17 "can be started early once the frontend scaffold exists — consider implementing alongside Phase 2 or 3." This is sound advice given that US-15 (Phase 4) must consider the interaction between event color themes and dark/light mode. However, the placement of US-17 in Phase 5 is not a scheduling error — it is a logical grouping. The practical recommendation to implement it earlier is correctly surfaced as a note, not enforced via a dependency constraint. No violation.

**Verdict:** Phase 5 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.

---
## Iteration 2 — 2026-03-03

**Task:** Verify Phase 1 (Core Event Flow — Vertical Slice)

**Verified phases:** Phase 0, Phase 1

**Method:** Checked each story's position in Phase 1 against its declared `Dependencies:` field in spec/userstories.md. Phase 0 is treated as already verified.

### Findings

**Dependency satisfaction:** PASS

| Story | Declared Dependencies | Scheduled at | All deps in earlier slots? |
|-------|-----------------------|--------------|---------------------------|
| US-1  | T-4                   | Phase 1 Order 1 | ✓ T-4 is Phase 0 Order 3 |
| US-2  | US-1, T-4             | Phase 1 Order 2 | ✓ US-1 is Phase 1 Order 1; T-4 is Phase 0 |
| US-3  | US-2, T-4             | Phase 1 Order 3 | ✓ US-2 is Phase 1 Order 2; T-4 is Phase 0 |

**Completeness:** PASS — US-1, US-2, US-3 are the only stories with all dependencies in Phase 0 or earlier. No eligible story is missing from Phase 1.

**Parallelizability:** PASS — The chain US-1 → US-2 → US-3 is strictly sequential; US-2 depends on US-1 and US-3 depends on US-2, so no parallelization is possible. The phase note "These three stories are strictly sequential" is accurate.

**Verdict:** Phase 1 is correctly ordered. No dependency violations found.
