## 1) Goals, Scope, and Assumptions **Confirmed:** Replace scattered emails with a responsive web portal for 30 adult members and five coordinators. Members submit room/start/end requests and see their own statuses; coordinators approve or reject requests. Submission triggers a confirmation email. **Main flow:** Existing organization sign-in → request form → pending request in member list → coordinator review → decision visible in member list. - **In scope:** Three screens—request form, member list, coordinator queue; submission email; overlap prevention for approved requests; member access restrictions; saved-request preservation when email fails. - **Out of scope:** New login design, payments, calendar integrations, post-submission editing/cancellation, public profiles, native mobile app. - **Open decisions:** Timezone; valid start/end boundaries and whether adjacent bookings overlap; rejection-reason requirements; coordinator access permissions needed for review. - **Assumptions:** None added. This plan uses only the fictional brief; no software, research, or assets were inspected. ## 2) Function and Flow Breakdown | Step | User action | System reaction | Success criterion | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | Use existing organization sign-in | Establish member/coordinator access through the existing arrangement | User reaches an authorized application screen; integration details remain open | | 2 | Enter room, start, and end; submit | Validate required values against agreed rules and save a pending request | One saved request contains the submitted values and pending status | | 3 | Open own request list | Display that member’s requests and statuses | Saved request appears; other members’ requests are inaccessible | | 4 | Coordinator reviews a pending request | Present room, start, end, and decision controls | Coordinator can assess and act on the request | | 5 | Approve or reject | Save the decision; approval must enforce the same-room overlap rule | Decision appears in the member list; conflicting approvals cannot both succeed | **Alternative/error paths:** Invalid input requires correction; conflicting approval requires resolution without creating an overlap; email failure preserves the saved request. Exact messages and recovery interactions remain open. **Abort path:** Leaving before submission creates no submitted request; draft retention is unspecified. Leaving after saving must not remove the request. **Documented handoffs:** Existing sign-in, coordinator review, and submission email. Delivery mechanism and any email-retry process remain open. ## 3) Component and State Matrix Existing component details require inspection before confirming reuse. | Screen/component | Purpose, content, interaction | Relevant states | Reuse/gap | |---|---|---|---| | Form: room/start/end fields | Capture required request values | Default, focus, populated, validation error | Reuse labelled fields where suitable; room input type remains open | | Form: submit button and feedback | Submit request and communicate result | Default, focus, submitting, validation/save error, saved confirmation | Reuse button; feedback treatment is a gap | | Member list: table/list and badges | Show own room/start/end requests and pending/approved/rejected status | Loading, empty, populated, load error | Reuse table/list and badges; extend if needed | | Coordinator queue: table/list | Present requests available for review | Loading, empty, populated, load error | Reuse table/list; queue membership after a decision remains open | | Coordinator decision controls | Approve or reject a pending request | Default, focus, processing, decision error, overlap conflict, success | Reuse buttons; rejection-reason input depends on decision | **Responsive:** All three screens must work on mobile and desktop; exact devices, breakpoints, and table/list adaptation remain open. **Accessibility:** Agree the target level. Suggested baseline requirements are keyboard operation, visible focus, associated labels/errors, announced processing/results, and status meaning available without color alone. Hover treatment applies where supported. ## 4) Relevant Edge Cases | Priority/case | Trigger | Visible behavior and text logic | Data/system reaction and recovery | |---|---|---|---| | Critical: invalid request | Required value missing or interval violates agreed rules | Identify the field and explain the specific correction | Do not save invalid input; preserve entered values for correction | | Critical: approval conflict | Existing or concurrent approval overlaps the same room | Explain that approval could not complete because of a conflict | Prevent conflicting approved records; exact retained status and next action require agreement | | Critical: unauthorized access | Member attempts to retrieve another member’s request | Show access failure without revealing request details | Deny access at the data boundary; allow return to own list | | Critical: email failure | Confirmation email fails after saving | Preserve accurate saved confirmation; any email warning must distinguish delivery from saving | Keep the request and pending status; retry/ownership policy remains open | | Hypothesis to test: uncertain submission | Connection drops or submission is repeated before confirmation | Avoid claiming success without evidence; explain uncertainty | Duplicate prevention and safe recovery behavior require a decision | | Hypothesis to test: competing coordinator decisions | Two coordinators act on the same request | Show the actual stored outcome when one action is no longer valid | Decision consistency and conflict recovery require agreement | ## 5) Content and Asset Needs Required text covers field labels and formats, submission/decision actions, three status labels, empty lists, loading feedback, validation, save/load failures, approval conflicts, access failures, saved confirmation, and submission-email subject/body. **Suggested responsibility:** Designer drafts interface text; developer supplies actionable failure conditions; product owner approves meaning and policy; QA verifies each message against its trigger. Approval is currently open. Formats are interface strings and an email template; the email’s delivery format remains open. No imagery or icons are required by the concept. ## 6) Implementation Plan | Order/package | Outcome and dependency | Involved roles | Verifiable acceptance criteria | |---|---|---|---| | 1. Resolve rules and access | Agreed timezone, boundaries, rejection policy, coordinator permissions, accessibility target, and uncertain-save recovery | Product owner, designer, developer, QA | Each decision has an owner and worked examples, including adjacent intervals and cross-member access | | 2. Specify screens and states | Three-screen design using existing components; depends on relevant rules | Designer, developer, product owner, QA | Every flow/state above maps to a screen treatment; component gaps and approved text are identified | | 3. Build submission and own list | Save pending requests, restrict member access, trigger email; depends on form and access decisions | Developer, designer, QA, product owner | Valid submission appears in own list; invalid submission is explained; another member cannot retrieve it; email failure preserves it | | 4. Build coordinator decisions | Queue review and consistent approval/rejection; depends on overlap and decision rules | Developer, designer, QA, product owner | Decisions appear in member list; simultaneous conflicting approvals cannot both succeed | | 5. Verify and hand over | Integrated functional, responsive, accessibility, and recovery evidence | QA, developer, designer, product owner | Agreed tests pass; content is approved; remaining issues have owners and release decisions | **Parallel work:** After relevant rules are settled, component review, content drafting, test preparation, and technical integration investigation can proceed together. Submission/list and queue work can overlap once shared request/status behavior is agreed. **Critical path:** Rule decisions → shared request/access behavior → complete submission-to-decision flow → integrated verification. No duration or deadline is assumed. ## 7) Definition of Done and Handover - Components, status labels, and relevant states are consistent across all three screens. - Main, validation, decision-conflict, access-denial, and agreed recovery flows are implemented. - Mobile/desktop operation and the agreed accessibility target are verified. - Interface text and submission email are approved; any required assets are released. - QA records concrete results for: - Submit valid room/start/end values; verify pending status and submission email. - Approve and reject requests; verify the corresponding member-visible status. - Attempt overlapping and simultaneous same-room approvals; verify overlap prevention. - Attempt cross-member retrieval; verify no request data is exposed. - Force email failure after saving; verify the request remains. - Exercise agreed invalid intervals, uncertain-save recovery, keyboard navigation, and mobile/desktop layouts. - Handover records open decisions, residual risks, and owners. **Suggested accountability:** product owner for scope/policy and release acceptance; designer for interaction/content specification; developer for implementation/integration; QA for verification evidence.