Task acceptance and standing readiness

These examples and illustrative results are independently authored teaching materials, not measured model results.

Use case

Add a CSV export button. Task acceptance requires the two currently filtered rows; standing project requirements also cover keyboard use, errors and build checks. One download does not satisfy both sets.

Mechanism

List task behaviors and accepted readiness requirements with evidence. Verify filtering, fields, format and failure behavior, then applicable keyboard, integration, regression and documentation gates. Reuse valid evidence and show gaps. Report readiness for the actual local/release scope without expanding into deployment.

Bad example

A file downloaded, so the button is done, ignoring all-data instead of filtered export and project quality gates.

Good example

Check this CSV button for the current two rows, fields and format. Separately check standing keyboard/error/build requirements. Supply evidence per item and retain failures. If scope is local delivery, keep release work subsequent rather than executing it automatically.

Why the change matters

Acceptance asks whether the requested feature exists; standing readiness asks whether it meets project completion quality. Both prevent happy-path success from hiding regressions or accessibility gaps.

Observable expectation

The teaching file contains only the two filtered rows. Empty/error outcomes follow the contract. Keyboard activation triggers the same behavior and build evidence matches revision. Both requirement sets must pass within the declared delivery scope.

Limits

Use real project requirements, not a generic checklist. Deployment/external actions need authorization. Local evidence does not establish production behavior; adopting new standards needs clarity rather than surprise gates.