For EWAI 0.2.8 · Install or update EWAI

Accept changes to EWAI evidence-depth behaviour

This is feature acceptance for EWAI maintainers, not a requirement for every application team running Archaeology. Use a disposable, privacy-safe fixture. The operator checklist covers reviewing an ordinary investigation.

Demonstrate reproducibility

For formal Manual QA, use the same repository revision and owner declarations in at least three clean sessions:

• Record the project revision, Source Map run, provider capability, installed persona tiers, and session condition.

• Confirm all seven dimensions and their material coverage are equivalent.

• Confirm stable gap IDs agree when their structured evidence is unchanged.

• Compare the reviewed runs.

• Confirm changes are explained in causal order: inputs, evidence, personas, depth, coverage, gaps, then grouping.

• Treat wording and ordering differences as non-material when structured evidence agrees.

• Treat a gap or coverage change without an upstream cause as unexplained variance and investigate it.

• When testing grouping, change only the grouping strategy and confirm gap identity remains stable.

Check the interface

At desktop width and 390 px:

• Open Guided Setup and expand Depth and evidence with the keyboard.
• Reach every selector, reviewer field, grouping field, and comparison control in a logical order.
• Confirm keyboard focus is visible and status does not depend on colour alone.
• Confirm dimension coverage, recommendation, selection, and active personas remain readable without horizontal page scrolling.
• Confirm the fallback Design System is labelled as not organisation-approved when no approved pack applies.
• Confirm advisory and authority notices remain visible.
• Ask an owner to explain why each deep dimension is deep and why each active persona is present.

Stop conditions

Do not approve Manual QA while any of these conditions remains:

• stale or missing Source Map evidence;
• unexplained comparison variance;
• an unassigned stable gap;
• a depth reduction without accountable rationale;
• a hidden analysis failure, exclusion, contradiction, or unknown surface;
• a persona presented as stakeholder confirmation or approval;
• materially weaker engineering coverage than the known-good route;
• inaccessible or unusable controls in a required viewport;
• unresolved owner concern about missing or disproportionate content.

Evidence to retain

• named participants and roles;
• date, project revision, and safe Source Map run ID;
• safe reviewed-run IDs and comparison outcome;
• selected depths and reduction rationale;
• persona identities, tiers, and engagement reasons;
• content-quality ratings and owner comments;
• viewport, keyboard, and accessibility observations;
• screenshots that contain no sensitive information;
• defects, corrective action, and retest evidence;
• final pass or fail decision made through the canonical Manual QA operation.

Do not describe this evidence as security certification, policy compliance, production readiness, deployment approval, or release acceptance.

Related guidance

• Reproducible Archaeology and Discovery Depth
• Worked example
• Repository Source Map
• Guided Discovery facilitator guide
• Manual QA and acceptance

Keep feature acceptance and a project’s investigation review separately labelled. A successful fixture run doesn’t establish the quality of every real investigation.