ba-post-implementation

name	ba-post-implementation
description	BA Phase 5 — post-implementation completeness verification (UI tasks). Load when dispatched with mode: post-implementation after FE Dev proposes to_status: ready-for-deploy for a UI-bearing task. Cross-references the design-confirmed handoff + task DoD against the FE Dev git diff (and deployed bundle when present) and emits docs/uiux/post-implementation-reports/<task-id>.md with a qualified/unqualified verdict.
agents	["ba"]
sdlc_phase	planning
owner	Platform Eng
status	active

BA Phase 5 — Post-Implementation Completeness Verification

When to use

You are the BA, dispatched in post-implementation mode after FE Dev proposed ready-for-deploy for a UI-bearing task. Independently verify the implementation matches the design-confirmed handoff and the task DoD (you are a fresh reviewer, never a rubber-stamp), and emit the verdict report. Mirrors Phase 3 but operates on the implementation diff.

Phase 5 — Post-Implementation Completeness Verification (UI tasks)

This phase runs after FE Dev proposes to_status: ready-for-deploy for any UI-bearing task (track: fe / be+fe, or Design sub-status: set in master plan, or Linked Surface: non-null). The Orchestrator dispatches BA in post-implementation mode (subagent_type: ba + dispatch parameter mode: post-implementation) BEFORE committing the master-plan transition.

This phase mirrors Phase 3 (design completeness against the handoff) but operates against the implementation diff. Phase 3 asks "is the design complete?"; Phase 5 asks "is the implementation complete?" Without Phase 5, the kit gates design existence rigorously but trusts implementation to self-attest — the 2026-06-04 FR-022 batch-UI silent-drop incident is what that asymmetry costs.

Trigger

• FE Dev has emitted plan-update.json proposing to_status: ready-for-deploy for a UI-bearing task.
• The ui-task-readiness-guard.cjs hook has already accepted the write (the artifact set — docs/uiux/handoffs/<task-id>.md, docs/uiux/refs/<task-id>.md, docs/uiux/visual-specs/<task-id>.md, docs/test-cases/by-task/<task-id>/ — is present and content-complete on disk). If the hook refused, the Orchestrator routes the gap to UI/UX Designer / QA-Author / FE Dev re-dispatch first; this phase does NOT run while the artifact set is incomplete.
• The Orchestrator dispatches you with: task_id, the FE Dev worktree path (.worktrees/fe-dev-<task-id>/), and a copy of the FE Dev plan-update.json (notes + DoD-scope justifications).

Procedure

1. Read the design-confirmed handoff and FE refs. Open docs/uiux/handoffs/<task-id>.md, docs/uiux/refs/<task-id>.md, and docs/uiux/visual-specs/<task-id>.md. Build the implementation expectation list: every screen, every component, every state, every interaction, every confirm-dialog / toast / modal, every Reference Render, every Visual Composition Contract row, every Asset Export Manifest row, and every Design Element Manifest / assertion row.

2. Read the task DoD. Open docs/plan/<phase>/tasks/<task-id>.md. Build the scope expectation list from each numbered Scope / sub-bullet — explicit code-path mentions, surface mentions, testID family mentions.

3. Compute the implementation diff. Run git diff main..HEAD against the FE Dev worktree. Parse the diff into: changed files, added/removed code locations, testIDs introduced, components touched.

4. Cross-reference each expectation against the diff.

   • For each handoff-named component: locate a matching diff hunk (file path AND component name). Missing match = gap.
   • For each Design Element Manifest row: locate a matching implementation trace row in docs/uiux/refs/<task-id>.md, then verify the named code location exists in the diff or pre-existing code cited by FE Dev. Missing trace, missing code location, or planned / not implemented status = gap.
   • For each static Figma label/option/copy/action in the manifest: grep the diff or cited source for the exact text OR for the i18n key mapped to that exact text. Missing exact copy/key = gap.
   • For each form field / table column / list item field / card field / menu option / tab / chip in the manifest: verify the diff or cited source contains a matching field/column/slot/option and selector/accessibility hook when one is required.
   • For each DoD-scope code-path mention: locate a matching diff hunk. Missing match = gap (unless FE Dev's plan-update.json notes carries an explicit justification per the FE Dev Self-Verification Bar rule).
   • For each testID family declared in docs/instrumentation-contract.md for the surface: grep the diff for at least one occurrence. Zero occurrences for a family = gap.
   • For each Asset Export Manifest row: verify the exported file exists at the traced path, code imports/uses it, and the implementation preserves declared semantics and rendering behavior. Placeholder text/emoji/generic glyphs, invented gradients, stock images, or missing imports are gaps.
   • For each Visual Composition Contract row: verify the cited layout code implements the contracted major regions, direct-child order, constraints, clipping/masks, responsive variant, and background treatment. A generic layout with the right child components is still a gap.
   • For each Reference Render: require implementation screenshot evidence at the same viewport/state. For Visual-Critical surfaces, require the approved-baseline visual-diff result; absence or failure is a gap.

5. Cross-reference each expectation against the deployed bundle when available. If a deploy report exists for the task at docs/deploy-reports/<task-id>.md referencing a built artifact, grep the artifact for expected testIDs, static copy/i18n keys, and manifest-required fields/items where practical. (Diff-side check covers source; bundle-side check covers any tree-shaking / build-time elision that drops elements from production.)

6. Compose the verdict.

   • qualified — every handoff-named element, asset, composition row, Design Element Manifest row, assertion, and DoD scope is represented in the diff/source (or explicitly justified where allowed). Every contract-declared testID family appears in the diff or bundle, and required visual comparison evidence passes.
   • unqualified — one or more gaps. Enumerate each gap by: handoff frame reference, DoD scope reference, missing testID family, OR contract section. Recommend the remediation shape (re-dispatch FE Dev with gap list, OR re-dispatch QA-Author by-task if missing testIDs are coverage gaps).

Output

Produce docs/uiux/post-implementation-reports/<task-id>.md:

• Summary verdict: qualified or unqualified
• Per-expectation verdict with specifics for any gaps
• For unqualified: list every gap with handoff frame reference / Manifest ID / DoD scope reference / file-path expected vs file-path observed
• Recommended next step: re-dispatch-fe-dev (with gap list) or re-dispatch-qa-author-by-task (when missing coverage)
• For qualified: explicitly note "implementation matches design-confirmed handoff" so the next reader can audit the verdict

plan-update.json does NOT transition the master-plan task status. Phase 5's job is to produce the report; the Orchestrator reads the verdict and decides:

• qualified → accept FE Dev's original → ready-for-deploy transition, proceed to DevOps.
• unqualified → revert FE Dev's transition to in-progress; dispatch the recommended remediation; FE Dev / QA-Author re-runs; Phase 5 re-runs after the next FE Dev ready-for-deploy proposal. Loop until qualified.

Hard Rules for Phase 5

• Never produce qualified against an absent handoff. If docs/uiux/handoffs/<task-id>.md is missing, halt with NEEDS_CONTEXT and request the Orchestrator dispatch UI/UX Designer first. The kit's design lifecycle should have already produced the handoff before FE Dev started; absence here means a prior gate failed.
• Never produce qualified against an absent visual spec or by-task TC pack. The ui-task-readiness-guard.cjs hook should have blocked the upstream plan-update.json; if you're being dispatched in Phase 5 against missing artifacts, halt with NEEDS_CONTEXT and request the kit's ui-task-readiness-guard.cjs enforcement be re-applied.
• Never produce qualified when docs/uiux/refs/<task-id>.md lacks ## Design Element Manifest or ## Implementation Trace Matrix. That means FE Dev did not freeze an implementation-level design contract.
• Never produce qualified when reference-render, visual-composition, asset-export, or corresponding trace/assertion sections are missing or empty. A screen can be functionally complete while still being the wrong design.
• Never accept placeholders for required assets or generic layout resemblance. Verify actual exported asset use and contracted composition, including decorative-but-rendered backgrounds and graphics.
• Never collapse manifest rows into component-level acceptance. A rendered UserProfileCard does not prove that DEM-004 Phone number, DEM-005 Department, and DEM-006 Manager are present. Verify each row.
• Never invent justifications for missing diff coverage. When a Scope has zero matching diff hunks AND FE Dev's plan-update.json notes does NOT carry an explicit justification: the verdict is unqualified. Do not pattern-match "probably this was covered under another Scope" — that's exactly the discipline failure Phase 5 exists to catch.
• You are a fresh reviewer, not the FE Dev's editor. You read the diff and the handoff independently and form your own verdict. If FE Dev's self-verification said "all 4 Scopes covered" and your diff scan finds Scope A absent, your verdict overrides FE Dev's claim. The kit's discipline depends on Phase 5 being an independent check — not a rubber-stamp of FE Dev's self-attestation.