{ "account_id": "public", "areas": [ { "area": "foundations", "coverage_pct": 100.0, "criteria": [ { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "The DTCG theme files (g10.json, g100.json) implement hundreds of role-based semantic tokens (background, layer, field, border, text, link, icon, support, focus, skeleton, ai, chat, syntax, toggle, overlay, shadow) each carrying an alias reference to a raw color primitive (e.g. background -> {gray.10}) and an inline $description of its role, repeated consistently across four theme files representing four modes. This is corroborated by the Figma file's confirmed full-file variable coverage: 1205 variables, 1907 alias references, and a dedicated Theme collection of 548 variables across the same four modes (White/Gray10/Gray90/Gray100), resolving the packet's stated known_limitation that full-file coverage needed confirmation via the Variables endpoint or a checked-in export. The independent color-guidance documentation states an operational Theme/Token/Role/Value model and gives systematic, non-arbitrary derivation rules for interaction-state tokens (hover = half-step, active = two full steps, selected = one full step), showing the alias/semantic layer is not just named but rule-governed. This satisfies anchor 3 (comprehensive, operational semantic layers and aliases). It does not reach anchor 4 because no evidence shows an automated process that validates or reconciles the token graph across consumers (e.g., a CI check diffing Figma-exported variables against the DTCG/npm package output) or measures token adoption/usage over time.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": true, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 217-235", "path": "files/packages/themes/src/dtcg/g10.json", "snapshot_id": "5143be78329c1b1e4237", "source_id": "carbon-foundations-code", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/themes/src/dtcg/g10.json" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 246-267", "path": "files/packages/colors/src/colors.ts", "snapshot_id": "5143be78329c1b1e4237", "source_id": "carbon-foundations-code", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/colors/src/colors.ts" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "/collections/0", "path": "figma-variable-summary.json", "snapshot_id": "31e36527e62be3c4f265", "source_id": "carbon-v11-figma", "source_url": "https://www.figma.com/community/file/1157761560874207208" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 219-258", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "c9535068f6088e09061e", "source_id": "carbon-color-guidance", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/elements/color/overview/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 342-357", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "c9535068f6088e09061e", "source_id": "carbon-color-guidance", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/elements/color/overview/" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "token_taxonomy", "critical": true, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "assessor", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 5, "declared": 5 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "Consumers can trust the documented semantic taxonomy and alias structure for current design and code artifacts, but cannot assume the token graph is actively guarded against future design/code drift since no automated reconciliation is evidenced.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break in the semantic/alias layer itself; the unmet piece is validation, not structure", "what_to_change": "Publish or surface evidence of an automated check (e.g., a CI job or release gate) that reconciles the Figma variable export against the published DTCG/npm token output, and track/report on token consumption across dependent packages.", "why": "The DTCG theme files and Figma variable export both show a comprehensive, alias-based token graph with documented operational rules, but the packet contains no CI/build artifact or governance record showing the graph is continuously checked across the code and design channels." }, "generalizability": "system-wide", "label": "Token taxonomy and semantics", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "The token graph is validated, measured, and maintained across consumers", "next_anchor_gap": "No evidence of an automated mechanism that validates or reconciles the token graph across consumers (e.g., CI parity checks between the Figma export and the published npm packages) or that measures token adoption/maintenance across consuming teams, which anchor 4 requires.", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "The DTCG theme files (g10.json, g100.json) implement hundreds of role-based semantic tokens (background, layer, field, border, text, link, icon, support, focus, skeleton, ai, chat, syntax, toggle, overlay, shadow) each carrying an alias reference to a raw color primitive (e.g. background -> {gray.10}) and an inline $description of its role, repeated consistently across four theme files representing four modes. This is corroborated by the Figma file's confirmed full-file variable coverage: 1205 variables, 1907 alias references, and a dedicated Theme collection of 548 variables across the same four modes (White/Gray10/Gray90/Gray100), resolving the packet's stated known_limitation that full-file coverage needed confirmation via the Variables endpoint or a checked-in export. The independent color-guidance documentation states an operational Theme/Token/Role/Value model and gives systematic, non-arbitrary derivation rules for interaction-state tokens (hover = half-step, active = two full steps, selected = one full step), showing the alias/semantic layer is not just named but rule-governed. This satisfies anchor 3 (comprehensive, operational semantic layers and aliases). It does not reach anchor 4 because no evidence shows an automated process that validates or reconciles the token graph across consumers (e.g., a CI check diffing Figma-exported variables against the DTCG/npm package output) or measures token adoption/usage over time.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "approve", "scope": { "basis": "mixed", "generalizability": "system-wide", "limitations": "Full-file variable coverage is confirmed for the current Figma library snapshot and the shipped DTCG theme sources reviewed (g10/g100; g90/white were referenced but not fully re-verified line-by-line due to excerpt truncation), and no automated cross-consumer validation pipeline is evidenced.", "subjects": [ "@carbon/themes DTCG token files (white, g10, g90, g100)", "carbon-v11-figma Theme variable collection", "carbon-color-guidance token/theme/role documentation" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Semantic layers and aliases are comprehensive and operational", "verification_depth": "implemented", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "Reusable low-level primitives are documented and packaged separately from semantic tokens: @carbon/colors exposes a full raw color scale (10-100 grades plus hover variants) as JS/Sass constants; @carbon/layout exposes a spacing scale (spacing01-13), fluid spacing, container sizes, and icon sizes; @carbon/motion exposes DTCG duration and cubic-bezier easing primitives with usage descriptions. These primitives are not merely declared but are shown being consumed: @carbon/motion's surfaces.json composes named motion 'recipes' (disclosure, contextual, stretch, expand, invoke) entirely from alias references to the duration/easing primitives (e.g. {duration.moderate.01}, {easing.entrance.productive}), and the theme DTCG files alias raw color primitives (e.g. {gray.10}, {blue.60}) throughout. The Figma variable summary independently confirms parallel primitive collections (Spacing: 28 variables, Radius: 2 variables, Breakpoint: 215 variables across 5 modes), meaning the same primitive scales are available to both code and design consumers. This meets anchor 3 (comprehensive and consistently consumed). It falls short of anchor 4 because there is no evidence of measured adoption or governance over primitive usage (e.g., linting that enforces primitive-only values, or reported consumption metrics), only the IBM Telemetry package-install notice, which does not measure primitive-level usage.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": true, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 8-56", "path": "files/packages/layout/src/tokens.ts", "snapshot_id": "5143be78329c1b1e4237", "source_id": "carbon-foundations-code", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/layout/src/tokens.ts" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 4-41", "path": "files/packages/motion/src/dtcg/motion.json", "snapshot_id": "5143be78329c1b1e4237", "source_id": "carbon-foundations-code", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/motion/src/dtcg/motion.json" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 4-23", "path": "files/packages/motion/src/dtcg/surfaces.json", "snapshot_id": "5143be78329c1b1e4237", "source_id": "carbon-foundations-code", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/motion/src/dtcg/surfaces.json" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "/collections/1", "path": "figma-variable-summary.json", "snapshot_id": "31e36527e62be3c4f265", "source_id": "carbon-v11-figma", "source_url": "https://www.figma.com/community/file/1157761560874207208" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 63-77", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "864cd765d8e0c3ebb4ae", "source_id": "carbon-grid-guidance", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/elements/2x-grid/overview/" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "primitives", "critical": false, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "assessor", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 5, "declared": 5 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "Component and product authors have a usable, comprehensive primitive set in both code and design tooling, but there is no visibility into how consistently the broader component catalog actually draws on these primitives versus hard-coded values.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break; the gap is adoption measurement, not primitive completeness", "what_to_change": "Add or surface enforcement (lint rules disallowing raw values in component styles) or usage telemetry so primitive adoption can be measured and governed across the catalog.", "why": "Evidence shows the primitives exist, are documented, and are consumed by at least the motion and color semantic layers via aliasing, but no telemetry, lint enforcement, or audit data on primitive usage across the full component catalog is present in the packet." }, "generalizability": "system-wide", "label": "Primitive completeness", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Primitive coverage and adoption are measured and governed", "next_anchor_gap": "No evidence of measured or governed primitive adoption (e.g., enforcement tooling, consumption telemetry, or a reported adoption rate across consuming teams/products), which anchor 4 requires.", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Reusable low-level primitives are documented and packaged separately from semantic tokens: @carbon/colors exposes a full raw color scale (10-100 grades plus hover variants) as JS/Sass constants; @carbon/layout exposes a spacing scale (spacing01-13), fluid spacing, container sizes, and icon sizes; @carbon/motion exposes DTCG duration and cubic-bezier easing primitives with usage descriptions. These primitives are not merely declared but are shown being consumed: @carbon/motion's surfaces.json composes named motion 'recipes' (disclosure, contextual, stretch, expand, invoke) entirely from alias references to the duration/easing primitives (e.g. {duration.moderate.01}, {easing.entrance.productive}), and the theme DTCG files alias raw color primitives (e.g. {gray.10}, {blue.60}) throughout. The Figma variable summary independently confirms parallel primitive collections (Spacing: 28 variables, Radius: 2 variables, Breakpoint: 215 variables across 5 modes), meaning the same primitive scales are available to both code and design consumers. This meets anchor 3 (comprehensive and consistently consumed). It falls short of anchor 4 because there is no evidence of measured adoption or governance over primitive usage (e.g., linting that enforces primitive-only values, or reported consumption metrics), only the IBM Telemetry package-install notice, which does not measure primitive-level usage.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "approve", "scope": { "basis": "mixed", "generalizability": "system-wide", "limitations": "Confirms the primitive packages themselves and their alias-based consumption within the themes/motion packages; does not verify that every cataloged component (beyond the sampled deep components) consistently draws on these primitives rather than hard-coded values.", "subjects": [ "@carbon/colors raw palette", "@carbon/layout spacing/container/icon-size scale", "@carbon/motion duration/easing primitives and surface recipes", "carbon-v11-figma Spacing/Radius/Breakpoint variable collections" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Primitives are comprehensive and consistently consumed", "verification_depth": "implemented", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "Carbon documents and implements four theme modes (White, Gray 10, Gray 90, Gray 100) as complete DTCG token sets, each tagged with a color-scheme extension and producing distinct values for the same semantic token names; this is mirrored exactly in the Figma Theme variable collection (548 variables x 4 modes). Responsive/layout modes are likewise systematic: a Breakpoint collection (215 variables across 5 modes: SM/MD/LG/XL/Max) and a Grid mode collection (25 variables across Wide/Narrow/Condensed/Nested) exist alongside documented 2x Grid breakpoint and margin specifications. Accessibility-oriented modes are embedded directly in the token model: the color-guidance documentation describes systematic light/dark layering, explicit high-contrast 'inverse' tokens for deliberate high-contrast moments, a dedicated $focus token family, and WCAG contrast-ratio tables driving token value selection. Sampled component nodes (e.g. Button) show bound_variable_ids drawing directly from the Theme, Breakpoint, and other mode-bearing collections, confirming these modes are wired into at least the sampled components rather than existing only as unused design tokens. This satisfies anchor 3 (systematic across tokens and components, for the modes Carbon claims: theming, responsive, and accessibility). It does not reach anchor 4 because there is no evidence of continuous/automated validation of mode compatibility across supported consumers (e.g., automated visual regression or variable-parity checks per mode).", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": true, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 1-8", "path": "files/packages/themes/src/dtcg/g10.json", "snapshot_id": "5143be78329c1b1e4237", "source_id": "carbon-foundations-code", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/themes/src/dtcg/g10.json" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 1-8", "path": "files/packages/themes/src/dtcg/g100.json", "snapshot_id": "5143be78329c1b1e4237", "source_id": "carbon-foundations-code", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/themes/src/dtcg/g100.json" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "/collections/0/modes", "path": "figma-variable-summary.json", "snapshot_id": "31e36527e62be3c4f265", "source_id": "carbon-v11-figma", "source_url": "https://www.figma.com/community/file/1157761560874207208" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "/collections/4", "path": "figma-variable-summary.json", "snapshot_id": "31e36527e62be3c4f265", "source_id": "carbon-v11-figma", "source_url": "https://www.figma.com/community/file/1157761560874207208" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 181-217", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "c9535068f6088e09061e", "source_id": "carbon-color-guidance", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/elements/color/overview/" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 5-44", "path": "figma-sample-details.json", "snapshot_id": "31e36527e62be3c4f265", "source_id": "carbon-v11-figma", "source_url": "https://www.figma.com/community/file/1157761560874207208" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "modes", "critical": true, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "assessor", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 5, "declared": 5 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "Designers and developers can rely on documented, token-driven theme/responsive/accessibility modes that are demonstrably wired into at least the sampled components, but there is no assurance that every mode continues to render correctly across all consumers after each release.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break; the gap is continuous validation across consumers, not mode coverage", "what_to_change": "Introduce and publish evidence of automated per-mode validation (e.g., visual regression across all four themes and breakpoints in CI) to move from systematic support to continuously validated mode compatibility.", "why": "Theme, breakpoint, and accessibility-related modes are represented consistently in both the DTCG source and the Figma variable export, and sampled components bind to these mode-bearing variables, but no automated per-mode regression or validation evidence is present in the packet." }, "generalizability": "system-wide", "label": "Modes and adaptation", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Mode compatibility is continuously validated across supported consumers", "next_anchor_gap": "No evidence of continuous/automated validation of mode compatibility across consumers (e.g., automated cross-mode visual regression, or parity checks confirming every mode renders correctly in shipped code across releases), which anchor 4 requires.", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Carbon documents and implements four theme modes (White, Gray 10, Gray 90, Gray 100) as complete DTCG token sets, each tagged with a color-scheme extension and producing distinct values for the same semantic token names; this is mirrored exactly in the Figma Theme variable collection (548 variables x 4 modes). Responsive/layout modes are likewise systematic: a Breakpoint collection (215 variables across 5 modes: SM/MD/LG/XL/Max) and a Grid mode collection (25 variables across Wide/Narrow/Condensed/Nested) exist alongside documented 2x Grid breakpoint and margin specifications. Accessibility-oriented modes are embedded directly in the token model: the color-guidance documentation describes systematic light/dark layering, explicit high-contrast 'inverse' tokens for deliberate high-contrast moments, a dedicated $focus token family, and WCAG contrast-ratio tables driving token value selection. Sampled component nodes (e.g. Button) show bound_variable_ids drawing directly from the Theme, Breakpoint, and other mode-bearing collections, confirming these modes are wired into at least the sampled components rather than existing only as unused design tokens. This satisfies anchor 3 (systematic across tokens and components, for the modes Carbon claims: theming, responsive, and accessibility). It does not reach anchor 4 because there is no evidence of continuous/automated validation of mode compatibility across supported consumers (e.g., automated visual regression or variable-parity checks per mode).", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "approve", "scope": { "basis": "mixed", "generalizability": "system-wide", "limitations": "Mode infrastructure (variable collections, DTCG theme files) is confirmed full-file/system-wide; component-level wiring is directly confirmed only for the sampled deep components (e.g. Button), not verified across the entire catalog.", "subjects": [ "Theme collection (4 modes)", "Breakpoint collection (5 modes)", "Grid mode collection (4 modes)", "carbon-color-guidance accessibility/high-contrast documentation", "Button component bound-variable sample" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Modes are systematic across tokens and components", "verification_depth": "implemented", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [ { "code": "collector-provenance-overclaim", "message": "Rationale appears to use ds-eval collection metadata as evidence of publisher-owned versioning or traceability. Snapshot and evidence-lock identifiers establish study provenance only." } ], "assessor_rationale": "Foundations are delivered as multiple independently versioned, installable npm packages (@carbon/colors, @carbon/layout, @carbon/motion, @carbon/themes), each with its own README documenting npm/yarn install commands and both Sass and JavaScript/ESM consumption paths, and the packet's evaluated-version header ties this to @carbon/react 1.114.0. In parallel, the same token contract is delivered through a versioned Figma community library ('(v11) Carbon Design System') that designers add to their files via Figma's Libraries mechanism, with confirmed full-file variable coverage (1205 variables) as of the snapshot's revision timestamp. This is two distinct, consistent, versioned consumer channels (code packages and a design-tool library) receiving the same semantic taxonomy, satisfying anchor 3. It does not reach anchor 4 because the packet contains no evidence of automated validation of the delivery contracts (e.g., a build step verifying Figma-exported tokens match the published package output) or measurement of migration impact when tokens change between versions.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": true, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 7-19", "path": "files/packages/themes/README.md", "snapshot_id": "5143be78329c1b1e4237", "source_id": "carbon-foundations-code", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/themes/README.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 7-19", "path": "files/packages/colors/README.md", "snapshot_id": "5143be78329c1b1e4237", "source_id": "carbon-foundations-code", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/colors/README.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 76-102", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "5bf01db21bb2389a6d09", "source_id": "carbon-figma-guidance", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/designing/kits/figma/" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 557-559", "path": "figma-summary.json", "snapshot_id": "31e36527e62be3c4f265", "source_id": "carbon-v11-figma", "source_url": "https://www.figma.com/community/file/1157761560874207208" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "delivery", "critical": false, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "reviewer", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 5, "declared": 5 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "Both design and engineering consumers can reliably install and reference a versioned foundations artifact today, but there is no evidence that drift between the Figma library and the npm packages would be automatically caught, or that the impact of a foundations change on downstream consumers is tracked.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break; the gap is contract validation and migration measurement, not the existence of versioned delivery", "what_to_change": "Add an automated check that reconciles the published Figma variable export against the released npm package token output on each version bump, and publish migration-impact data (e.g., which consumers were affected) for foundations token changes.", "why": "READMEs confirm independent npm package versioning and Sass/JS consumption paths, and the Figma guidance/summary confirm a parallel versioned design-library channel with full-file coverage, but no CI/contract-test artifact or migration-impact report appears in the packet." }, "generalizability": "system-wide", "label": "Consumable delivery and versioning", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Delivery contracts are validated and migration impact is measured", "next_anchor_gap": "Automated release-over-release validation between Figma variables and published package output, plus measured consumer migration impact for foundation changes, is needed to establish validated and measured delivery contracts.", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Carbon delivers installable foundation packages\u2014including colors, layout, motion, and themes\u2014with documented Sass and JavaScript consumption paths. Carbon\u2019s Figma guidance separately documents its named v11 libraries and how designers enable them through Figma\u2019s Libraries mechanism, while the collected full-file export confirms that the evaluated design library contains the corresponding variable foundation. Together, this establishes distinct delivery channels for code and design consumers. Score 4 is not supported because public evidence does not demonstrate an automated release-over-release check reconciling the Figma variables with published package output or measured migration impact when foundations change.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "revise", "scope": { "basis": "mixed", "generalizability": "system-wide", "limitations": "Confirms the existence and consistency of two versioned delivery channels at this snapshot; does not confirm automated reconciliation between them over time or measurement of migration impact on downstream consumers.", "subjects": [ "@carbon/colors, @carbon/layout, @carbon/motion, @carbon/themes npm packages", "(v11) Carbon Design System Figma community library" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Multiple consumers receive consistent versioned artifacts", "verification_depth": "implemented", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } } ], "critical_unresolved": false, "detail": "tokens and primitives", "label": "Foundations", "provisional_score": 75.0, "provisional_state": "continue", "publishable": true, "review_coverage_pct": 100.0, "score": 75.0, "state": "continue", "unresolved_disagreement": false }, { "area": "bindings", "coverage_pct": 100.0, "criteria": [ { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "Code Connect files (packages/react/code-connect/**) provide a documented, per-component naming translation table between Figma property/variant names and React props for all 11 deep-component samples (e.g. Button 'Style'\u2192kind, 'Size'\u2192size, 'State: Disabled'\u2192disabled; Grid's Figma asset is explicitly named 'Screen' while the code component is 'Grid'). This is systematic documentation, not tribal knowledge, ruling out anchor 1. However, material known gaps are explicit in the evidence itself: Tile's Code Connect mapping has most Figma properties (titleText, descriptionText, disabled, selected, slot, title, description) commented out with an inline comment citing an open, unresolved GitHub issue (#20089) for a 'Code Connect CLI validation bug'; Toggle's Figma 'State text' single property is mapped to two distinct code props (labelA/labelB); and 'Show label' is a negated boolean vs. code's hideLabel. These are documented but real naming-alignment gaps for at least one full sampled component, which prevents claiming systematic alignment across the whole sample.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": true, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 17-38", "path": "files/packages/react/code-connect/Button/Button.figma.tsx", "snapshot_id": "ef0fc94e689c12c30608", "source_id": "carbon-react-code-connect", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/code-connect/Button/Button.figma.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 12-30", "path": "files/packages/react/code-connect/Grid/Grid.figma.tsx", "snapshot_id": "ef0fc94e689c12c30608", "source_id": "carbon-react-code-connect", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/code-connect/Grid/Grid.figma.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 20-44", "path": "files/packages/react/code-connect/Tile/Tile.figma.tsx", "snapshot_id": "ef0fc94e689c12c30608", "source_id": "carbon-react-code-connect", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/code-connect/Tile/Tile.figma.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 16-38", "path": "files/packages/react/code-connect/Toggle/Toggle.figma.tsx", "snapshot_id": "ef0fc94e689c12c30608", "source_id": "carbon-react-code-connect", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/code-connect/Toggle/Toggle.figma.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 18-45", "path": "files/packages/react/code-connect/DataTable/TableRow.figma.tsx", "snapshot_id": "ef0fc94e689c12c30608", "source_id": "carbon-react-code-connect", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/code-connect/DataTable/TableRow.figma.tsx" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "naming_parity", "critical": false, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "assessor", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 18, "declared": 18 }, "exact_agreement_count": 2, "finding": { "impact": "Consumers using Figma Dev Mode for these two sampled components will not see accurate prop-name guidance for a meaningful subset of their design properties, increasing the chance of manual, ad hoc translation for exactly the components where it is most needed.", "what_broke": "Tile's published Code Connect naming map has most Figma properties (title/description/disabled/selected/slot) disabled due to a known, unresolved tooling bug, and Data table's TableRow has multiple Figma properties (selectable, select type, selection, state, zebra style) left commented out.", "what_to_change": "Resolve the referenced Code Connect CLI validation bug (or work around it) to restore full Tile prop mapping, and complete the TableRow property mapping so naming parity is uniformly documented, not partially disabled, across the full deep-component sample.", "why": "packages/react/code-connect/Tile/Tile.figma.tsx and TableRow.figma.tsx show large blocks of commented-out figma.connect props, with Tile's comment explicitly citing carbon-design-system/carbon#20089 as the blocking cause." }, "generalizability": "sample-only", "label": "Naming parity", "median_score": 2.0, "next_anchor": "Names are systematically aligned across surfaces", "next_anchor_gap": "To reach 'systematically aligned across surfaces', the Tile sample's naming mapping would need to be fully restored (not commented out) and Data table's TableRow would need its remaining commented-out Figma properties (selectable, select type, selection, state, zebra style) mapped, so that no deep-component sample has an unresolved naming gap.", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Code Connect files (packages/react/code-connect/**) provide a documented, per-component naming translation table between Figma property/variant names and React props for all 11 deep-component samples (e.g. Button 'Style'\u2192kind, 'Size'\u2192size, 'State: Disabled'\u2192disabled; Grid's Figma asset is explicitly named 'Screen' while the code component is 'Grid'). This is systematic documentation, not tribal knowledge, ruling out anchor 1. However, material known gaps are explicit in the evidence itself: Tile's Code Connect mapping has most Figma properties (titleText, descriptionText, disabled, selected, slot, title, description) commented out with an inline comment citing an open, unresolved GitHub issue (#20089) for a 'Code Connect CLI validation bug'; Toggle's Figma 'State text' single property is mapped to two distinct code props (labelA/labelB); and 'Show label' is a negated boolean vs. code's hideLabel. These are documented but real naming-alignment gaps for at least one full sampled component, which prevents claiming systematic alignment across the whole sample.", "raw_scores": [ 2, 3, 2 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "approve", "scope": { "basis": "deep-component", "generalizability": "sample-only", "limitations": "Evidence covers only the 11 declared deep-component samples via Code Connect; catalog-wide naming parity for the remaining ~330 composition candidates in the Figma library is not evidenced and cannot be inferred from this sample.", "subjects": [ "Button", "Form", "Text input", "Toggle", "Modal", "Notification", "Tile", "Loading", "Grid", "Data table", "UI shell" ] }, "score": 2.0, "score_range": 1.0, "selected_anchor": "Common names are documented with known gaps", "verification_depth": "implemented", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "Most sampled deep components (Button, TextInput, Toggle, Notification, Modal, Form, Grid) show extensive, current, observed prop-level mappings between Figma variant/boolean/enum controls and supported React props, with at least one authoring-only control (Grid's Breakpoint) correctly excluded as design-only. However, Tile's core content-bearing props (titleText, descriptionText, slot, title, description) are explicitly disabled in source pending an unresolved, self-acknowledged Code Connect CLI validation bug, and TableRow's base selection/expansion props are commented out without an equivalent rationale. These are material, unresolved gaps in the sampled set rather than fully justified exclusions, so the mapping does not yet 'map coherently' with 'surface-specific controls explicitly classified' across the whole sample.", "binding_mappings": [ { "code_expression": "Tile, ClickableTile, SelectableTile, ExpandableTile, children, disabled, selected, and composition slots", "design_expression": "Type variants plus Title text, Description text, Selected, State, and Swap slot", "disposition": "derived_mapping", "rationale": "The same choices are expressed through specialized React components and children composition; the source documents intended mappings even though the Code Connect CLI currently rejects several active declarations.", "subject": "Tile types and content" }, { "code_expression": "TableExpandRow, TableExpandedRow, and TableSelectRow composition", "design_expression": "Expandable, Selectable, and Select type variants", "disposition": "derived_mapping", "rationale": "Separate Code Connect variants demonstrate the equivalent React composition for expandable, checkbox, and radio rows.", "subject": "DataTable row selection and expansion" }, { "code_expression": "CSS media queries and responsive Grid behavior without a consumer breakpoint prop", "design_expression": "Screen Breakpoint variant", "disposition": "design_only", "rationale": "The Figma control simulates viewport width for authoring; runtime responsiveness is automatic and the Code Connect example does not pass it to Grid.", "subject": "Grid breakpoint preview" }, { "code_expression": "ComposedModal open and onClose runtime props", "design_expression": "No corresponding authoring property required", "disposition": "runtime_only", "rationale": "Visibility and callbacks are runtime state and event concerns, not persistent design-library choices.", "subject": "Modal open and close callback" }, { "code_expression": "Button kind, size, and isExpressive props", "design_expression": "Style and Size variants", "disposition": "shared_contract", "rationale": "Code Connect explicitly maps each supported design variant to the corresponding React API.", "subject": "Button style and size" } ], "citation_conflict": false, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 70-170", "path": "files/packages/react/code-connect/Tile/Tile.figma.tsx", "snapshot_id": "ef0fc94e689c12c30608", "source_id": "carbon-react-code-connect", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/code-connect/Tile/Tile.figma.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 155-175", "path": "files/packages/react/src/components/Tile/Tile.tsx", "snapshot_id": "8ecdf97a7dd31b0f1380", "source_id": "carbon-react-implementation", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/src/components/Tile/Tile.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 47-119", "path": "files/packages/react/code-connect/DataTable/TableRow.figma.tsx", "snapshot_id": "ef0fc94e689c12c30608", "source_id": "carbon-react-code-connect", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/code-connect/DataTable/TableRow.figma.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 53-55", "path": "files/packages/react/src/components/DataTable/Table.tsx", "snapshot_id": "8ecdf97a7dd31b0f1380", "source_id": "carbon-react-implementation", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/src/components/DataTable/Table.tsx" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "contract_correspondence", "critical": true, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "reviewer", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 18, "declared": 18 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "Consumers reading Tile's Figma-to-code mapping in Dev Mode will not see how Figma's title/description/content properties correspond to React Tile usage, forcing manual translation for this component.", "what_broke": "Tile's Code Connect mapping has its core content props (titleText, descriptionText, slot, title, description) commented out and non-functional, citing an unresolved upstream Code Connect CLI validation bug (carbon-design-system/carbon#20089); only the swapSlot instance-swap prop remains live.", "what_to_change": "Track and resolve the linked Code Connect CLI validation bug, or ship an interim manual example demonstrating the titleText/descriptionText/slot mapping until the tooling bug is fixed; also clarify whether TableRow's commented base props are dead code or an active gap.", "why": "The Tile.figma.tsx source itself documents the gap: 'TODO: Re-enable these props when Code Connect validation bug is fixed... Properties exist in Figma but fail validation despite correct names.'" }, "generalizability": "sample-only", "label": "Design-to-code contract correspondence", "median_score": 2.0, "next_anchor": "Machine-readable mappings continuously validate shared contracts and explicitly classify surface-specific controls", "next_anchor_gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Machine-readable mappings continuously validate shared contracts and explicitly classify surface-specific controls", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Across the declared sample, consumer-controlled choices correspond through React APIs, CSS/runtime behavior, or composition. Tile types map to specialized Tile components and content maps through children; DataTable row selection and expansion map through specialized row subcomponents; Figma interaction states map to CSS or runtime state; Grid breakpoint is an authoring preview control; and modal callbacks are runtime-only. The unresolved Tile Code Connect validation defect reduces active traceability but does not remove the supported cross-surface contract. No evidence shows continuous machine validation and drift measurement across the complete contract.", "raw_scores": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "revise", "scope": { "basis": "deep-component", "generalizability": "sample-only", "limitations": "Only the 11 declared deep-component samples were evidenced; contract correspondence for catalog-only components is unknown, and the Tile/TableRow gaps should not be generalized to the rest of the sample, which shows coherent mappings.", "subjects": [ "Button", "TextInput", "Toggle", "Notification", "Modal", "Form", "Grid", "Tile", "Data table (TableRow)" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Supported choices, derived states, slots, and composition map coherently, and surface-specific controls are explicitly classified", "verification_depth": "implemented", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "Design and code share both token identity and mode structure. On the code side, @carbon/themes ships DTCG-format semantic token files per theme mode (white.json, g10.json, g90.json, g100.json), each declaring a color-scheme extension (light/dark) and organizing tokens into the same named groups documented normatively (background, layer, field, border, text/link/icon, support, focus, skeleton) \u2014 g10.json shows this structure directly (background, border, field, focus, layer, link, overlay, shadow, skeleton, support groups with hover/active/selected sub-states). On the design side, the Figma source is recorded with 'variable_coverage: full-file' and 'resolved_variable_count: 1205', and every sampled component (button, data-table, form, grid, loading, modal, notification, text-input, tile, toggle, ui-shell) shows component_status 'resolved' with dozens of bound_variable_ids per component, confirming Figma Variables are bound at the same granularity as the code token groups. Normative documentation (carbon-color-guidance) explicitly frames tokens as theme-independent, role-based identifiers with the same name across all four themes, matching the DTCG structure. This satisfies anchor 3 (identity and modes align). It does not reach anchor 4 because no evidence shows automated cross-surface token-parity validation (e.g. a CI diff between Figma Variables and DTCG token exports) \u2014 the code-connect.yml workflow publishes component mappings, not token equivalence checks.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": true, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 18-4752", "path": "figma-export.json", "snapshot_id": "31e36527e62be3c4f265", "source_id": "carbon-v11-figma", "source_url": "https://www.figma.com/community/file/1157761560874207208" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 1-842", "path": "files/packages/themes/src/dtcg/g10.json", "snapshot_id": "5143be78329c1b1e4237", "source_id": "carbon-foundations-code", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/themes/src/dtcg/g10.json" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "token_parity", "critical": true, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "reviewer", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 18, "declared": 18 }, "exact_agreement_count": 2, "finding": { "impact": "Without automated parity checks, token drift between a future Figma Variables update and the DTCG token export would not be caught until manually noticed, risking silent divergence between design and code color/theme tokens over time.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break in identity/mode alignment for the evidenced foundation token layer; the remaining gap is the absence of automated cross-surface validation.", "what_to_change": "Add an automated CI check (e.g. via the Figma Variables REST API) that diffs published Figma Variable names/values against the generated DTCG token files on each release and fails on unexplained divergence.", "why": "The evidence shows full-file variable resolution and matching DTCG token group structure/modes, but no CI job comparing the two surfaces was found among the reviewed GitHub workflows." }, "generalizability": "system-wide", "label": "Token parity", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Cross-surface token parity is automatically validated", "next_anchor_gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Cross-surface token parity is automatically validated", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "The checked-in full-file Figma export makes variable names observable. Reviewer comparison found direct semantic matches for 101 of 104 standard core code-token paths (97.1%) and the design and code artifacts share four theme modes. Product/design-only Figma extensions and syntax/implementation-only code tokens are treated as scoped differences, not parity failures. Three standard paths remain unmatched (layer/background/03, shadow, support/caution/undefined), and no automated parity or drift check was evidenced, so score 4 is not supported.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 2 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "revise", "scope": { "basis": "foundation", "generalizability": "system-wide", "limitations": "This assessment covers the color/theme token layer, where full-file Figma variable coverage was explicitly confirmed; motion and layout/spacing token parity (e.g. deprecated layout01-07 tokens in @carbon/layout) were not independently cross-checked against Figma variable bindings in this packet and are not included in this generalization.", "subjects": [ "Color tokens (@carbon/colors)", "Theme tokens (@carbon/themes DTCG: white/g10/g90/g100)", "Figma Variables (full-file coverage, 1205 resolved variables)" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 1.0, "selected_anchor": "Token identity and modes align across design and code", "verification_depth": "implemented", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "Code Connect provides a maintained, versioned mechanism linking specific Figma node URLs directly to their React component/prop implementations for the entire declared deep-component sample, published automatically via CI (code-connect.yml) whenever changes merge to main. Deprecated-API tracking exists at the code level through the `deprecate()` PropTypes wrapper (e.g., ComposedModal's `slug` prop deprecated in favor of `decorator`) and through comprehensive, versioned migration documentation (docs/migration/v11.md) and a documented semver policy (docs/guides/versioning.md) that explicitly classifies prop additions, deprecations, and removals by version and maintains a 'Public API Snapshot' test to catch unintended API drift. Together these constitute versioned mappings that expose both currently supported and deprecated APIs across the whole @carbon/react package. The mechanism is not fully mature, however: the Code Connect README states it is 'in an exploratory phase,' at least one sampled file (TableRow) has properties commented out without an inline rationale comparable to Tile's, and there is no evidence of automated enforcement that fails builds when Code Connect mappings drift from actual component APIs, which would be required for the top anchor.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": false, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 1-47", "path": "files/.github/workflows/code-connect.yml", "snapshot_id": "ef0fc94e689c12c30608", "source_id": "carbon-react-code-connect", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/workflows/code-connect.yml" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 1-30", "path": "files/packages/react/code-connect/README.md", "snapshot_id": "ef0fc94e689c12c30608", "source_id": "carbon-react-code-connect", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/code-connect/README.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "release", "locator": "lines 27-72", "path": "files/docs/guides/versioning.md", "snapshot_id": "3eb54126648a690950d8", "source_id": "carbon-release-migration", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/guides/versioning.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "release", "locator": "lines 683-775", "path": "files/docs/migration/v11.md", "snapshot_id": "3eb54126648a690950d8", "source_id": "carbon-release-migration", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/migration/v11.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 780-785", "path": "files/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal.tsx", "snapshot_id": "8ecdf97a7dd31b0f1380", "source_id": "carbon-react-implementation", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal.tsx" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "traceability", "critical": false, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "reviewer", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 18, "declared": 18 }, "exact_agreement_count": 2, "finding": { "impact": "Consumers of Code Connect for DataTable's TableRow may not realize several Figma properties (AI spacer, zebra style, state, selectable, select type, selection) are intentionally left unmapped, since no comment or issue link is provided there, reducing traceability confidence for that specific mapping.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break in the versioned-mapping mechanism itself, but Code Connect is self-described as being in an 'exploratory phase' and at least one sampled file (TableRow.figma.tsx) contains commented-out properties without an inline explanation comparable to the documented Tile issue.", "what_to_change": "Add inline rationale or issue links for all commented-out Code Connect properties (starting with TableRow) so every excluded or deferred property is traceable, consistent with the practice already used for Tile.", "why": "TableRow.figma.tsx comments out multiple properties without citing a reason, whereas Tile's equivalent gap is explicitly documented with a linked GitHub issue, showing inconsistent rigor in how gaps are traced." }, "generalizability": "system-wide", "label": "Traceability and deprecation", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Traceability and deprecation drift are automatically enforced", "next_anchor_gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Traceability and deprecation drift are automatically enforced", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Carbon maintains component-to-Figma references through per-component Code Connect files and republishes them through CI when changes reach main. Deprecated APIs are identified in implementation code, while the versioned v11 migration guide documents removed, renamed, and deprecated APIs; the versioning policy and public API snapshot testing further support code API traceability. This meets the versioned maintained-reference anchor. Score 4 is not supported because Code Connect is explicitly exploratory, some sampled mappings contain disabled or incomplete properties, and no automated design-to-code drift check was evidenced.", "raw_scores": [ 2, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "revise", "scope": { "basis": "mixed", "generalizability": "system-wide", "limitations": "The versioning/migration documentation explicitly covers the entire @carbon/react public API, supporting a system-wide claim for deprecation tracking; however, the Code Connect design-linking portion of traceability was only verified for the 11-item deep-component sample and should not be assumed complete for catalog items outside that sample.", "subjects": [ "Code Connect mechanism (11 sampled deep components)", "@carbon/react semver/deprecation documentation", "deprecate() PropTypes wrapper pattern" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 1.0, "selected_anchor": "Versioned mappings expose supported and deprecated APIs", "verification_depth": "automation-wired", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": true, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } } ], "critical_unresolved": false, "detail": "how design maps to code", "label": "Bindings", "provisional_score": 68.75, "provisional_state": "partial", "publishable": true, "review_coverage_pct": 100.0, "score": 68.75, "state": "partial", "unresolved_disagreement": false }, { "area": "components", "coverage_pct": 100.0, "criteria": [ { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "The public catalog (preview component listing, v11 Figma library, and production ecosystem overview) shows Carbon Core spans roughly 40 components covering the system's stated foundational scope: actions, inputs, selection controls, data display, feedback/notifications, overlays, and layout. All 11 declared deep-component samples resolve cleanly against the Figma library (sample_resolution component_status: 'resolved' for all 11), and the production home page confirms parallel design (Figma) and code (React/Angular/Vue/Svelte/Web Components) library availability. This satisfies comprehensive coverage for Carbon's stated purpose as a foundational, general-purpose base layer, but there is no public evidence of measured gaps, adoption, or component-health tracking, which is explicitly declared out of scope for this evaluation (governance known_limitations excludes adoption dashboards).", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": true, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "release", "locator": "lines 251-331", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "5c8d22766ed99f612755", "source_id": "carbon-preview-components", "source_url": "https://preview.carbondesignsystem.com/building-blocks/core/components/overview/components" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 1-170", "path": "figma-sample-details.json", "snapshot_id": "31e36527e62be3c4f265", "source_id": "carbon-v11-figma", "source_url": "https://www.figma.com/community/file/1157761560874207208" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 59-65", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "c17ea85760ba066f6f7f", "source_id": "carbon-production-home", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "core_coverage", "critical": false, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "reviewer", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 21, "declared": 21 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "Teams building common enterprise UI needs (forms, tables, navigation, feedback, overlays) have a reusable component available in both design and code for nearly every documented use case.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break", "what_to_change": "Publish a public gap/adoption metric (e.g., component maturity or usage dashboard) to support a higher anchor; current governance scope explicitly withholds this as private.", "why": "Catalog and Figma inventory evidence corroborate each other across two independent public sources (preview catalog and Figma library) plus the code package." }, "generalizability": "system-wide", "label": "Core component coverage", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Gaps, adoption, and component health are measured", "next_anchor_gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Gaps, adoption, and component health are measured", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Carbon's documented catalog spans roughly 40 components across action, input, selection, navigation, overlay, feedback, content, status, layout, and data-display archetypes, and all 11 declared representative deep components resolved in the Figma library. This supports comprehensive coverage for Carbon Core's stated foundational scope. Score 4 is not supported because no public systematic measurement of catalog gaps, adoption, or component health was evidenced; catalog presence is not treated as proof of state, responsive, accessibility, or binding quality.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "revise", "scope": { "basis": "catalog", "generalizability": "system-wide", "limitations": "Catalog evidence establishes breadth and inventory only; it does not prove per-component state, accessibility, binding, or responsive quality. The preview-site catalog is release-authority supplemental material, not normative production documentation.", "subjects": [ "carbon-preview-components catalog listing", "carbon-v11-figma component-set inventory", "carbon-production-home library ecosystem overview" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Coverage is comprehensive for the stated scope", "verification_depth": "implemented", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [ { "code": "permission-absence-claim", "message": "Verify the permission-state absence claim against pattern and recovery guidance." } ], "assessor_rationale": "Sampled deep components declare explicit, multi-state Figma contracts (disabled, error, warning, read-only, skeleton, actionable/status variants), normative docs prescribe validation, loading, and recovery guidance, and \u2014 beyond prose \u2014 an automated Playwright @avt e2e suite actually exercises disabled states, filter apply/reset, batch-action cancel, and modal dismiss/cancel across several sampled components in CI. Permission-gated states are absent from all sampled evidence, and no public metric measures state-test completeness system-wide, so the 'measured' anchor-4 clause is unsupported.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": true, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 516-568", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "3eb605429f1ccd49de1b", "source_id": "carbon-forms-pattern", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/patterns/forms-pattern/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 150-176", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "7b3b96d8a125e6503a3c", "source_id": "carbon-empty-state-pattern", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/patterns/empty-states-pattern/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 332-359", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "7b3b96d8a125e6503a3c", "source_id": "carbon-empty-state-pattern", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/patterns/empty-states-pattern/" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "state_coverage", "critical": true, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "reviewer", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 21, "declared": 21 }, "exact_agreement_count": 2, "finding": { "impact": "Teams building permission-gated flows have no documented or tested Carbon pattern to rely on, risking inconsistent ad hoc handling of denied-access states.", "what_broke": "Permission-state guidance and evidence (e.g., access-denied / insufficient-permission handling) are absent from all sampled deep components and compositions.", "what_to_change": "Publish explicit permission/access-denied state guidance with corresponding automated test coverage, or clarify that permission handling is intentionally delegated outside Carbon Core (e.g., to Carbon for Products).", "why": "None of the sampled deep-component Figma state dimensions, docs, or e2e specs reference a permission/authorization state; only loading, error, disabled, warning, and validation states are covered." }, "generalizability": "sample-only", "label": "Normal, recovery, and permission states", "median_score": 2.0, "next_anchor": "State contracts are executable, tested, and measured", "next_anchor_gap": "Current system-wide state-coverage results\u2014including permission, partial-success, and recovery scenarios across the catalog\u2014plus tracked gaps or regressions are needed to establish measured state coverage.", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Across the declared sample, Carbon documents and implements form validation, server-side correction, disabled and duplicate-submission prevention, loading and progress, success, warning, read-only, empty and no-results recovery, and error-management states for permission, system, and configuration failures. The empty-state pattern explicitly requires explaining permission restrictions and providing steps to request access. This supports comprehensive state ownership and guidance across the declared components and compositions. Score 4 is not supported because public evidence does not show continuous, comprehensive measurement of the state matrix, and partial-success behavior is not established as a system-wide contract.", "raw_scores": [ 2, 2, 3 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "revise", "scope": { "basis": "deep-component", "generalizability": "sample-only", "limitations": "State-matrix conclusions apply to the sampled deep components and cited compositions; not confirmed for the full ~40-component public catalog.", "subjects": [ "Button", "Text input", "Toggle", "Notification", "Modal", "Loading", "Data table (catalog corroboration)" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 1.0, "selected_anchor": "Normal and recovery states have comprehensive ownership and guidance", "verification_depth": "documented", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "Carbon documents a detailed 2x Grid breakpoint system (Small 320/Medium 672/Large 1056/X-Large 1312/Max 1584 with defined columns, padding, and margins) and the Figma Screen component plus the Grid code-connect mapping expose a matching Breakpoint variant/enum, showing a shared design-to-code breakpoint contract. Component-level responsive prose guidance exists for UI shell header (collapses to a hamburger menu at smaller sizes) and data table (wide/narrow/condensed gutter modes). This satisfies documented behavior and constraints, but the evidence packet contains no code-level (e.g., CSS media query) or test-level proof that sampled components actually adapt consistently at runtime across the declared flow viewports (small/medium/large) \u2014 per the size-variants-alone caveat, breakpoint enum definitions and guidance prose do not by themselves prove responsive behavior.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": false, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 152-176", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "864cd765d8e0c3ebb4ae", "source_id": "carbon-grid-guidance", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/elements/2x-grid/overview/" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 445-473", "path": "figma-sample-details.json", "snapshot_id": "31e36527e62be3c4f265", "source_id": "carbon-v11-figma", "source_url": "https://www.figma.com/community/file/1157761560874207208" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 348-399", "path": "files/packages/react/src/components/Grid/Column.tsx", "snapshot_id": "8ecdf97a7dd31b0f1380", "source_id": "carbon-react-implementation", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/src/components/Grid/Column.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 239-246", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "ffb2854c79a762b42e9e", "source_id": "carbon-ui-shell-docs", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/components/UI-shell-header/usage/" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 12-22", "path": "files/e2e/components/Grid/Grid-test.avt.e2e.js", "snapshot_id": "c7035884c47c4a634eff", "source_id": "carbon-accessibility-quality", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/e2e/components/Grid/Grid-test.avt.e2e.js" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "responsive_behavior", "critical": false, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "reviewer", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 21, "declared": 21 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "Consumers can rely on documented breakpoint constraints and layout guidance for planning, but cannot confirm from this evidence alone that Grid, Modal, UI shell, or Data table actually re-flow correctly at each breakpoint without separate manual or visual verification.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break, but no direct operational or test evidence of runtime responsive adaptation was found in the packet beyond breakpoint/variant definitions and prose guidance.", "what_to_change": "Surface (or cite) the responsive/media-query implementation in the Grid, Modal, and UI shell Header source, or add breakpoint-driven e2e/visual-regression checks, to move from documented constraints to demonstrated adaptive behavior.", "why": "The evidence packet supplies breakpoint/variant enumerations (Figma Screen, Grid code-connect) and normative prose describing intended responsive behavior, but no CSS/media-query source, no viewport-resize e2e test, and no visual-regression citation tied specifically to breakpoint behavior." }, "generalizability": "sample-only", "label": "Responsive behavior", "median_score": 2.0, "next_anchor": "Components adapt consistently across supported conditions", "next_anchor_gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Components adapt consistently across supported conditions", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Carbon defines a detailed breakpoint system, matching Figma variants, responsive Grid implementation that generates breakpoint-specific classes, and component guidance such as UI-shell collapse at smaller sizes. This meets documented behavior and constraints. Score 3 is not supported because runtime adaptation is evidenced strongly for Grid but not consistently across the broader declared component and composition sample, and collected tests do not exercise the small, medium, and large viewport matrix. The finding is evidence-bounded and does not claim Carbon is unresponsive.", "raw_scores": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "requires_review": false, "review_status": "revise", "scope": { "basis": "mixed", "generalizability": "sample-only", "limitations": "Evidence demonstrates breakpoint/variant definitions and prose guidance for a subset of components; it does not cover container-query behavior, density modes, or content-driven responsive conditions system-wide, and does not confirm runtime adaptation for components outside this citation set.", "subjects": [ "2x Grid foundation", "grid/Screen component", "ui-shell Header", "data-table", "modal sizing" ] }, "score": 2.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Basic behavior and constraints are documented", "verification_depth": "test-defined", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": true } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "Carbon runs an automated, CI-gated accessibility pipeline: the ci.yml workflow builds Storybook, runs Playwright tests tagged @avt across 4 shards, and a required 'avt' job fails the build if avt-runner does not succeed. E2E AVT test files exist in the evidence for all 11 declared deep components (Button, ComposedModal, DataTable, Form, Grid, Loading, Notifications, TextInput, Tile, Toggle, UIShell), and the test code contains real assertions \u2014 toHaveNoACViolations checks, keyboard focus-order (Tab/Shift+Tab), Enter/Space activation, focus trapping inside ComposedModal, and disabled-state checks \u2014 not just documentation claims. Carbon's own normative testing-status tables corroborate this: most sampled components show 'Tested' for default state, advanced states, and keyboard navigation, with screen-reader behavior manually verified (AVT3 process documented in docs/guides/accessibility.md). This constitutes direct execution evidence satisfying 'comprehensive and tested,' but AT/screen-reader verification remains a manual process rather than continuously automated, and Loading, Form, and Modal show explicit gaps in advanced-state/keyboard testing, which blocks the top anchor.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": false, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 240-352", "path": "files/.github/workflows/ci.yml", "snapshot_id": "c7035884c47c4a634eff", "source_id": "carbon-accessibility-quality", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/workflows/ci.yml" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 124-151", "path": "files/e2e/components/Button/Button-test.avt.e2e.js", "snapshot_id": "c7035884c47c4a634eff", "source_id": "carbon-accessibility-quality", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/e2e/components/Button/Button-test.avt.e2e.js" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 58-83", "path": "files/e2e/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal-test.avt.e2e.js", "snapshot_id": "c7035884c47c4a634eff", "source_id": "carbon-accessibility-quality", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/e2e/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal-test.avt.e2e.js" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 517-535", "path": "files/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal.tsx", "snapshot_id": "8ecdf97a7dd31b0f1380", "source_id": "carbon-react-implementation", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 31-38", "path": "files/docs/guides/accessibility.md", "snapshot_id": "c7035884c47c4a634eff", "source_id": "carbon-accessibility-quality", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/guides/accessibility.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 70-76", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "a82ca9adbd35c0913589", "source_id": "carbon-loading-docs", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/components/loading/usage/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 80-87", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "050f13ebce3920eb3d9a", "source_id": "carbon-modal-docs", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/components/modal/usage/" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "accessibility_behavior", "critical": true, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "reviewer", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 21, "declared": 21 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "Teams can trust that automated axe-style violation checks and keyboard-focus behavior are continuously verified in CI for the sampled components, but cannot assume the same continuous assurance for screen-reader interaction or for Loading/Form/Modal advanced states, which rely on manual, point-in-time verification.", "what_broke": "No confirmed critical accessibility failure; the residual gap is that AT/screen-reader regression checking is manual and a subset of the sample (Loading, Form, Modal) has incomplete advanced-state/keyboard test coverage per Carbon's own disclosure.", "what_to_change": "Automate AT/screen-reader regression checks where feasible (or document a recurring manual AVT3 cadence with public results), and close the disclosed advanced-state/keyboard-testing gaps for Loading and Form.", "why": "Direct CI configuration and e2e test-code evidence show executed, gating automated checks; Carbon's own normative testing-status tables directly disclose which states and interaction modes remain manually verified or partially tested." }, "generalizability": "sample-only", "label": "Accessibility behavior", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Assistive-technology coverage and regressions are continuously measured", "next_anchor_gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Assistive-technology coverage and regressions are continuously measured", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Carbon implements ARIA semantics, accessible names, keyboard behavior, focus routing and trapping, and Escape handling, and runs Playwright accessibility tests covering all 11 sampled component families. CI executes automated violation checks plus keyboard, focus-order, disabled-state, activation, and modal focus-trap assertions across four shards on pushes and pull requests, corroborated by published component testing statuses. This meets comprehensive and tested accessible behavior. Score 4 is not supported because screen-reader testing remains primarily manual, Form, Loading, and Modal disclose advanced-state or keyboard-testing gaps, and no continuously measured assistive-technology coverage or regression metric was evidenced.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "revise", "scope": { "basis": "deep-component", "generalizability": "sample-only", "limitations": "AVT CI evidence is confirmed only for components with e2e test files present in this packet (the 11 declared deep components); it does not confirm equivalent automated AT/keyboard testing exists or passes for catalog components outside the declared deep sample.", "subjects": [ "button", "form", "text-input", "toggle", "ui-shell", "modal", "notification", "tile", "loading", "grid", "data-table" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Accessible behavior is comprehensive and tested", "verification_depth": "automation-wired", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": true, "current_results": false, "test_definition": true } } ], "critical_unresolved": false, "detail": "coverage and states", "label": "Components", "provisional_score": 68.75, "provisional_state": "partial", "publishable": true, "review_coverage_pct": 100.0, "score": 68.75, "state": "partial", "unresolved_disagreement": false }, { "area": "structure", "coverage_pct": 100.0, "criteria": [ { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [ { "code": "packet-file-omission", "message": "Matching Grid/Row/Column implementation was collected but omitted from this assessor packet. Treat the score as a packet-coverage issue, not evidence that the design system lacks it." } ], "assessor_rationale": "The 2x Grid foundation page provides a comprehensive, current normative spec (mini units, fluid/fixed/hybrid grids, breakpoints table, margins/padding/gutters, sizing scale, aspect ratios, vertical rhythm, screen regions, and fixed/flexible/floating panel behavior). This is not an isolated component sheet or nav title: it is actively cross-referenced and applied by form (grid alignment, gutter modes), data-table (wide/narrow/condensed gutter placement), tile (wide/narrow/condensed layout), and button (hanging vs non-hanging grid alignment) documentation, all of which fall within the declared create-configure-save and empty-state-recovery scope. This shows the primitives are used, not merely catalogued, across the stated product scope.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": true, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 63-176", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "864cd765d8e0c3ebb4ae", "source_id": "carbon-grid-guidance", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/elements/2x-grid/overview/" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 445-473", "path": "figma-sample-details.json", "snapshot_id": "31e36527e62be3c4f265", "source_id": "carbon-v11-figma", "source_url": "https://www.figma.com/community/file/1157761560874207208" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 348-399", "path": "files/packages/react/src/components/Grid/Column.tsx", "snapshot_id": "8ecdf97a7dd31b0f1380", "source_id": "carbon-react-implementation", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/src/components/Grid/Column.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 126-152", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "8fc50471ec9712c17b99", "source_id": "carbon-form-docs", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/components/form/usage/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 172-204", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "c56c4563f8d66087a5f5", "source_id": "carbon-data-table-docs", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/components/data-table/usage/" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "layout_primitives", "critical": false, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "reviewer", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 18, "declared": 18 }, "exact_agreement_count": 2, "finding": { "impact": "Teams can trust the documented grid/spacing/shell contract as comprehensive design guidance, but this packet cannot confirm the Grid/Row/Column code enforces those rules or that layout exceptions are caught before shipping.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break; however, no Grid/Row/Column implementation source was included in the evidence packet to verify the documented grid rules are enforced by the runtime components.", "what_to_change": "Include Grid/Row/Column implementation source and any lint or test coverage of grid usage to substantiate a move toward anchor 4 (validated, measured layout use).", "why": "The 2x Grid foundation page and its cross-references from form, data-table, tile, and button docs establish a comprehensive, applied layout contract, but no Grid.tsx/Row.tsx/Column.tsx source or automated conformance check appears in the evidence." }, "generalizability": "system-wide", "label": "Layout primitives", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Layout use and exceptions are validated and measured", "next_anchor_gap": "Automated layout-conformance results, governed exception tracking, and adoption measurement across supported consumer surfaces are needed to establish validated and measured layout use.", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Carbon provides an operational layout system covering mini units, spacing, columns, rows, margins, padding, gutters, fluid/fixed/hybrid grids, breakpoint conditions, panel types, and screen regions. Grid, Row, and Column implementation is present with breakpoint-specific span and offset contracts, a matching Figma Screen asset is captured, and component documentation applies the layout rules to Forms, Data tables, Tiles, and other sampled surfaces. This supports coverage of Carbon Core\u2019s stated product scope. Score 4 is not supported because public evidence does not measure layout adoption or exceptions, and no automated layout-usage validation was found.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 2 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "revise", "scope": { "basis": "mixed", "generalizability": "system-wide", "limitations": "No Grid/Row/Column code artifact was included to verify implementation fidelity to the documented rules; no measurement of layout compliance or exceptions across the product is evidenced.", "subjects": [ "2x Grid foundation", "Form layout guidance", "Data table placement guidance", "Tile layout guidance", "Button alignment guidance" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 1.0, "selected_anchor": "Layout primitives cover the stated product scope", "verification_depth": "implemented", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "Composition rules are documented extensively and consistently across the declared create-configure-save flow and loading-recovery pattern: Modal anatomy explicitly allows Data table/Form/Progress-indicator content to occupy the body; Button docs define allowed/disallowed button-group combinations; the Forms pattern defines button alignment, bleed, and emphasis rules inside dialogs/side panels; Notification docs define placement composition relative to forms (above submit/cancel) and callouts. Crucially, this is not prose-only: ModalFooter.tsx contains real operational composition code \u2014 SecondaryButtonSet composes Button and ButtonSet, and the file imports InlineLoading for use inside the modal footer, directly evidencing a coded composition contract for Button+Loading+Modal matching two of the three declared compositions. This combination of consistent documented rules plus one directly observed code composition supports 'composition contracts cover supported product assemblies.' No evidence of automated/executable validation of these composition rules (e.g., lint rules or Code Connect enforcement) was present, so anchor 4 is not met.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": true, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 8-16", "path": "files/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ModalFooter.tsx", "snapshot_id": "8ecdf97a7dd31b0f1380", "source_id": "carbon-react-implementation", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ModalFooter.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 31-71", "path": "files/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ModalFooter.tsx", "snapshot_id": "8ecdf97a7dd31b0f1380", "source_id": "carbon-react-implementation", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ModalFooter.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 145-163", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "050f13ebce3920eb3d9a", "source_id": "carbon-modal-docs", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/components/modal/usage/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 428-492", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "72227fea8b16b41d54c9", "source_id": "carbon-button-docs", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/components/button/usage/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 431-502", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "3eb605429f1ccd49de1b", "source_id": "carbon-forms-pattern", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/patterns/forms-pattern/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 268-279", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "5ddd06356d3de1711f12", "source_id": "carbon-notification-docs", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/components/notification/usage/" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "composition_guidance", "critical": false, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "assessor", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 18, "declared": 18 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "Teams assembling the declared flow and loading-recovery pattern have both a documented contract and a working code reference for button/loading composition inside a modal footer, reducing ambiguity for that sub-assembly.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break: documented composition rules are corroborated by real ModalFooter code composing Button, ButtonSet, and InlineLoading.", "what_to_change": "Extend observed code composition evidence to Form+TextInput+Toggle and Notification+Grid assemblies to remove reliance on documentation alone for the remaining flow components.", "why": "ModalFooter.tsx imports and composes Button, ButtonSet, and InlineLoading with explicit secondary/primary button role logic, matching the documented button-group and modal-footer guidance." }, "generalizability": "sample-only", "label": "Composition guidance", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Composition rules are executable or automatically validated", "next_anchor_gap": "No automated or executable validation (lint rule, Code Connect enforcement, or test) of these composition contracts is present, which anchor 4 requires.", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Composition rules are documented extensively and consistently across the declared create-configure-save flow and loading-recovery pattern: Modal anatomy explicitly allows Data table/Form/Progress-indicator content to occupy the body; Button docs define allowed/disallowed button-group combinations; the Forms pattern defines button alignment, bleed, and emphasis rules inside dialogs/side panels; Notification docs define placement composition relative to forms (above submit/cancel) and callouts. Crucially, this is not prose-only: ModalFooter.tsx contains real operational composition code \u2014 SecondaryButtonSet composes Button and ButtonSet, and the file imports InlineLoading for use inside the modal footer, directly evidencing a coded composition contract for Button+Loading+Modal matching two of the three declared compositions. This combination of consistent documented rules plus one directly observed code composition supports 'composition contracts cover supported product assemblies.' No evidence of automated/executable validation of these composition rules (e.g., lint rules or Code Connect enforcement) was present, so anchor 4 is not met.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "approve", "scope": { "basis": "composition", "generalizability": "sample-only", "limitations": "Directly observed code composition is limited to the Modal footer (Button, ButtonSet, InlineLoading); Grid, Form, TextInput, and Toggle composition is evidenced only through documentation, not source.", "subjects": [ "create-configure-save flow (Button, Modal, Notification, Loading)", "loading-recovery pattern" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Composition contracts cover supported product assemblies", "verification_depth": "implemented", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "The four declared patterns (Forms, Loading, Empty states, Notifications) are each documented as detailed, reusable task patterns with anatomy, variants, best practices, and explicit 'Related' links back to their constituent components (e.g., Forms pattern links Button, Checkbox, Text input, Toggle; Loading pattern links Data table, Loading, Pagination and cross-links Empty states/Forms/Notifications patterns; Notification pattern links Modal, Notification, UI shell). This directly matches 'patterns cover important tasks and remain linked to components' for the declared sample. The composition packet's own known_limitations disclose that Carbon does not publish a composed Figma flow/pattern artifact for these \u2014 an honest scope boundary rather than a design failure, and design is not a required surface for these patterns. No evidence of pattern usage, outcome, or lifecycle measurement was found, so anchor 4 is not met.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": false, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 779-799", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "3eb605429f1ccd49de1b", "source_id": "carbon-forms-pattern", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/patterns/forms-pattern/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 76-97", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "30a9f6ff2e51428b61e6", "source_id": "carbon-loading-pattern", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/patterns/loading-pattern/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 179-196", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "30a9f6ff2e51428b61e6", "source_id": "carbon-loading-pattern", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/patterns/loading-pattern/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 85-116", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "7b3b96d8a125e6503a3c", "source_id": "carbon-empty-state-pattern", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/patterns/empty-states-pattern/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 538-552", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "7b3b96d8a125e6503a3c", "source_id": "carbon-empty-state-pattern", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/patterns/empty-states-pattern/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 188-206", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "ccdd6def0597b441795c", "source_id": "carbon-notification-pattern", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/patterns/notification-pattern/" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "patterns_templates", "critical": false, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "assessor", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 18, "declared": 18 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "Designers and engineers have clear task-pattern guidance and component linkage to implement the declared flow and patterns, but cannot cross-check a canonical composed design artifact \u2014 only code/documentation surfaces are required and available.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break: the declared patterns are documented and component-linked, but Carbon's own known_limitations disclose no composed Figma flow artifact exists for them.", "what_to_change": "No change required for the required (code, documentation) surfaces; if design-surface parity becomes required in future, Carbon would need to publish composed pattern artifacts.", "why": "carbon-forms-pattern, carbon-loading-pattern, carbon-empty-state-pattern, and carbon-notification-pattern each provide anatomy, when-to-use guidance, and explicit 'Related' component/pattern links matching the declared composition scope." }, "generalizability": "sample-only", "label": "Patterns and templates", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Pattern use, outcomes, and lifecycle are measured", "next_anchor_gap": "No evidence of measured pattern use, outcomes, or lifecycle tracking (adoption metrics, deprecation cadence) is present, which anchor 4 requires.", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "The four declared patterns (Forms, Loading, Empty states, Notifications) are each documented as detailed, reusable task patterns with anatomy, variants, best practices, and explicit 'Related' links back to their constituent components (e.g., Forms pattern links Button, Checkbox, Text input, Toggle; Loading pattern links Data table, Loading, Pagination and cross-links Empty states/Forms/Notifications patterns; Notification pattern links Modal, Notification, UI shell). This directly matches 'patterns cover important tasks and remain linked to components' for the declared sample. The composition packet's own known_limitations disclose that Carbon does not publish a composed Figma flow/pattern artifact for these \u2014 an honest scope boundary rather than a design failure, and design is not a required surface for these patterns. No evidence of pattern usage, outcome, or lifecycle measurement was found, so anchor 4 is not met.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": false, "review_status": "approve", "scope": { "basis": "composition", "generalizability": "sample-only", "limitations": "Evidence covers only the four declared patterns; it does not establish coverage of Carbon's full pattern catalog (e.g., Dialogs, Filtering, Search) beyond the preview-site index, which is supplemental only.", "subjects": [ "Forms pattern", "Loading pattern", "Empty states pattern", "Notifications pattern" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Patterns cover important tasks and remain linked to components", "verification_depth": "documented", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "ComposedModal.tsx provides direct, operational (not merely prose) evidence of focus and dismissal ownership: a Tab-wrap focus trap (wrapFocus/wrapFocusWithoutSentinels), Escape-key handling gated by isTopmostVisibleModal to correctly own only the topmost of nested/stacked modals, outside-click ownership that differs by passive vs. transactional modal state (with a runtime warning() guarding against misconfiguration), initial-focus assignment logic (danger button vs. selectorPrimaryFocus vs. close button), and launcher-focus return on close. This is corroborated by normative Modal usage docs describing trigger/focus/loading/validation ownership, Notification docs describing dismissal and keyboard-focus ownership (Tab between action and close-x, Esc), and Loading docs describing interaction-blocking ownership (overlay blocks all interaction; small loading disables related buttons). Together these comprehensively cover dialog, async-state (loading/validation), and nested-composition ownership for the declared flow and patterns. Drawer/side-panel and route-level ownership are not part of the declared flow's component set (grid, form, text-input, toggle, button, notification, modal, loading) and remain unevidenced/unknown rather than a confirmed gap. No evidence of continuous automated verification (e.g., focus-trap tests running in CI) was found, so anchor 4 is not met.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": false, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 373-419", "path": "files/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal.tsx", "snapshot_id": "8ecdf97a7dd31b0f1380", "source_id": "carbon-react-implementation", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 503-515", "path": "files/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal.tsx", "snapshot_id": "8ecdf97a7dd31b0f1380", "source_id": "carbon-react-implementation", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 517-535", "path": "files/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal.tsx", "snapshot_id": "8ecdf97a7dd31b0f1380", "source_id": "carbon-react-implementation", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 556-592", "path": "files/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal.tsx", "snapshot_id": "8ecdf97a7dd31b0f1380", "source_id": "carbon-react-implementation", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/react/src/components/ComposedModal/ComposedModal.tsx" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 282-326", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "050f13ebce3920eb3d9a", "source_id": "carbon-modal-docs", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/components/modal/usage/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 465-489", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "5ddd06356d3de1711f12", "source_id": "carbon-notification-docs", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/components/notification/usage/" }, { "evidence_authority": "normative", "locator": "lines 209-234", "path": "content.txt", "snapshot_id": "a82ca9adbd35c0913589", "source_id": "carbon-loading-docs", "source_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/components/loading/usage/" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "interaction_ownership", "critical": true, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "assessor", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 18, "declared": 18 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "For the create-configure-save flow and loading-recovery pattern, engineers have a coherent, code-backed contract for who owns focus, escape handling, outside-click dismissal, and loading/validation state during a dialog task, reducing risk of conflicting implementations across teams.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break within the declared dialog/async-state sample: ownership is comprehensively evidenced. Drawer/route-level ownership is unevidenced but is also outside the declared flow's component set.", "what_to_change": "To reach anchor 4, add automated tests or CI-verified assertions for the modal focus trap, nested-modal escape targeting, and loading/validation state transitions so the contract is continuously verified rather than only implemented and documented.", "why": "ComposedModal.tsx implements isTopmostVisibleModal-gated escape handling, isPassive-based outside-click rules with a runtime warning, and initial-focus/launcher-focus-return logic; Modal, Notification, and Loading usage docs independently corroborate the same ownership behaviors in prose." }, "generalizability": "sample-only", "label": "Navigation, focus, and state ownership", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Cross-composition contracts are executable and continuously verified", "next_anchor_gap": "No CI test, automated focus-trap assertion, or other continuous-verification evidence was found for these ownership contracts, which anchor 4 requires; drawer/route-level ownership also remains unevidenced since those constructs are outside the declared flow's component set.", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "ComposedModal.tsx provides direct, operational (not merely prose) evidence of focus and dismissal ownership: a Tab-wrap focus trap (wrapFocus/wrapFocusWithoutSentinels), Escape-key handling gated by isTopmostVisibleModal to correctly own only the topmost of nested/stacked modals, outside-click ownership that differs by passive vs. transactional modal state (with a runtime warning() guarding against misconfiguration), initial-focus assignment logic (danger button vs. selectorPrimaryFocus vs. close button), and launcher-focus return on close. This is corroborated by normative Modal usage docs describing trigger/focus/loading/validation ownership, Notification docs describing dismissal and keyboard-focus ownership (Tab between action and close-x, Esc), and Loading docs describing interaction-blocking ownership (overlay blocks all interaction; small loading disables related buttons). Together these comprehensively cover dialog, async-state (loading/validation), and nested-composition ownership for the declared flow and patterns. Drawer/side-panel and route-level ownership are not part of the declared flow's component set (grid, form, text-input, toggle, button, notification, modal, loading) and remain unevidenced/unknown rather than a confirmed gap. No evidence of continuous automated verification (e.g., focus-trap tests running in CI) was found, so anchor 4 is not met.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "approve", "scope": { "basis": "mixed", "generalizability": "sample-only", "limitations": "Ownership evidence is strongest for Modal (direct code) and documentation-level for Notification/Loading; drawer/side-panel and route-transition ownership fall outside the declared flow and pattern component set and are therefore unknown, not confirmed absent.", "subjects": [ "Modal (ComposedModal)", "Notification dismissal/keyboard ownership", "Loading interaction-blocking ownership" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Navigation, focus, and state contracts are comprehensive", "verification_depth": "implemented", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": false, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } } ], "critical_unresolved": false, "detail": "layout and composition", "label": "Structure", "provisional_score": 75.0, "provisional_state": "continue", "publishable": true, "review_coverage_pct": 100.0, "score": 75.0, "state": "continue", "unresolved_disagreement": false }, { "area": "governance", "coverage_pct": 100.0, "criteria": [ { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "CODEOWNERS assigns a default reviewing team plus path-specific owners (including a named individual for icons/pictograms) and flags admin/lead teams for Public API and .github changes. This is technically enforced by GitHub review-assignment on matching paths, not just aspirational text. The issue-triage.yml workflow is a real, currently-running automation that assigns severity, project fields, and role labels on live issue events, and support.md documents concrete escalation paths to named subteams (@carbon-design-system/design, /developers, /ibma) plus a 3-business-day PR review turnaround expectation. SECURITY.md adds a public, dated response commitment (7 business days) for vulnerability reports tied to a specific supported-version table. Together this is more than static documentation of contacts: decision rights (who reviews what) and support boundaries (response-time targets, escalation routing) are operating today. It falls short of anchor 4 because the only recurring, measured signal in evidence is a weekly PR merge-rate metric, not a broader measurement of ownership health or service-expectation adherence (e.g., actual response-time compliance, escalation resolution time).", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": false, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 1-24", "path": "files/.github/CODEOWNERS", "snapshot_id": "850be183e89b93a74a5d", "source_id": "carbon-operating-governance", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/CODEOWNERS" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 1-57", "path": "files/.github/workflows/issue-triage.yml", "snapshot_id": "850be183e89b93a74a5d", "source_id": "carbon-operating-governance", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/workflows/issue-triage.yml" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 100-113", "path": "files/docs/guides/reviewing-pull-requests.md", "snapshot_id": "850be183e89b93a74a5d", "source_id": "carbon-operating-governance", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/guides/reviewing-pull-requests.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 54-93", "path": "files/docs/guides/support.md", "snapshot_id": "850be183e89b93a74a5d", "source_id": "carbon-operating-governance", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/guides/support.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 468-481", "path": "files/docs/guides/support.md", "snapshot_id": "850be183e89b93a74a5d", "source_id": "carbon-operating-governance", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/guides/support.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 3-29", "path": "files/SECURITY.md", "snapshot_id": "850be183e89b93a74a5d", "source_id": "carbon-operating-governance", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/SECURITY.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 16-58", "path": "files/.github/workflows/metrics-merge-rate.yml", "snapshot_id": "850be183e89b93a74a5d", "source_id": "carbon-operating-governance", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/workflows/metrics-merge-rate.yml" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "ownership", "critical": false, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "reviewer", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 8, "declared": 8 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "Consumers can see who owns what and how escalation is supposed to work, but cannot verify from public evidence whether commitments like the 7-business-day security response target are actually being met over time.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break in documented ownership, but no public measurement of ownership health or service-expectation adherence exists beyond a single weekly merge-rate metric.", "what_to_change": "Publish a periodic, automated measurement of core ownership-health signals (issue/PR response time versus committed targets, escalation resolution time) using the same weekly-report pattern already established for merge rate.", "why": "metrics-merge-rate.yml is the only recurring, automated measurement present in the evidence packet; it tracks PR throughput, not response-time or escalation-SLA compliance." }, "generalizability": "system-wide", "label": "Named ownership", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Ownership health and service expectations are measured", "next_anchor_gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Ownership health and service expectations are measured", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Carbon's ownership model is operational: CODEOWNERS assigns default and path-specific reviewers, pull-request guidance defines developer and design approval rights, issue-triage automation assigns severity, labels, and project metadata, support documentation establishes rotations and named escalation paths, and security reporting includes a published response expectation. This meets operational decision rights and support boundaries. Score 4 is not supported because the available merge-rate metric does not comprehensively measure ownership health, response-time compliance, reviewer load, escalation resolution, or support-service performance.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": false, "review_status": "revise", "scope": { "basis": "governance", "generalizability": "system-wide", "limitations": "Evidence is public-repository governance material only; private IBM decision records, internal Slack activity, and adoption/ownership-health dashboards referenced in the governance known_limitations are unknown, not scored as absent.", "subjects": [ "CODEOWNERS reviewer assignment", "issue-triage automation", "SECURITY.md response commitment", "support.md escalation paths" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Decision rights and support boundaries are operational", "verification_depth": "automation-wired", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": true, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "reviewing-pull-requests.md and the PR template define an operational, cross-discipline review path: a four-stage process (initial review, functional testing, code/CI verification, final review), per-change-type review criteria spanning React, Web Components, Storybook, testing, style, workflow/CI, and icons, and explicit approval thresholds (2 developer approvals, plus 1 design approval when UI/visual impact triggers design review, per a stated rule for determining when that applies). This is reinforced by the live issue-triage.yml automation (including a named automated preliminary bug-assessment step) and support.md's description of designers triaging design issues while developers triage dev issues, with a documented Carbon Accessibility Guild (CAG) cross-functional review cadence for pattern refinement. This goes beyond a merely documented path to an operating, criteria-driven, cross-discipline process. It does not reach anchor 4 because only PR-merge throughput is measured (metrics-merge-rate.yml); no public evidence measures review quality or outcomes (e.g., defect escape rate, post-merge reverts).", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": true, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 37-113", "path": "files/docs/guides/reviewing-pull-requests.md", "snapshot_id": "850be183e89b93a74a5d", "source_id": "carbon-operating-governance", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/guides/reviewing-pull-requests.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 23-44", "path": "files/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md", "snapshot_id": "850be183e89b93a74a5d", "source_id": "carbon-operating-governance", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 1-24", "path": "files/.github/CODEOWNERS", "snapshot_id": "850be183e89b93a74a5d", "source_id": "carbon-operating-governance", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/CODEOWNERS" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 29-124", "path": "files/.github/workflows/ci.yml", "snapshot_id": "c7035884c47c4a634eff", "source_id": "carbon-accessibility-quality", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/workflows/ci.yml" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 16-58", "path": "files/.github/workflows/metrics-merge-rate.yml", "snapshot_id": "850be183e89b93a74a5d", "source_id": "carbon-operating-governance", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/workflows/metrics-merge-rate.yml" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "contribution_review", "critical": false, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "reviewer", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 8, "declared": 8 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "Stakeholders can confirm an operational, criteria-driven review path exists, but cannot independently verify from public evidence that it is producing measurably better outcomes (fewer defects, fewer reverts) over time.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break in the documented cross-discipline review process, but no public evidence measures review quality or outcomes beyond weekly merge throughput.", "what_to_change": "Extend the existing automated metrics reporting beyond merge rate to include review-quality/outcome signals (e.g., post-merge revert rate, accessibility-regression rate tied to reviewed PRs) and publish them on the same recurring cadence.", "why": "metrics-merge-rate.yml measures only merge throughput; no review-quality or downstream-outcome metric is present in the evidence packet." }, "generalizability": "system-wide", "label": "Contribution and review", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Review quality, throughput, and outcomes are measured", "next_anchor_gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Review quality, throughput, and outcomes are measured", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Carbon operates a cross-discipline contribution and review process with a defined four-stage pull-request review, criteria spanning implementation, testing, Storybook, styling, CI, and other change types, two developer approvals, an additional design approval for qualifying visual or interaction changes, author self-review checklists, CODEOWNERS assignment, and automated quality gates. This meets operational cross-discipline review criteria and decisions. Score 4 is not supported because public measurement covers some merge throughput but not review quality and outcomes such as defect escape, post-merge reverts, or review effectiveness.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "revise", "scope": { "basis": "governance", "generalizability": "system-wide", "limitations": "Evidence covers the public GitHub contribution/review process and one supplemental preview-site overview page; internal design-crit and CAG meeting outcomes, and non-public review discussions, are unknown.", "subjects": [ "PR review process and checklist", "issue-triage automation", "PR merge-rate metric", "preview-site contribution overview (supplemental)" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Cross-discipline review criteria and decisions are operational", "verification_depth": "automation-wired", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": true, "current_results": false, "test_definition": false } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "versioning.md gives a concrete, examples-backed semver contract (mapping specific change types to patch/minor/major bumps) enforced in part by a tracked PublicAPI snapshot test that reviewers use to catch non-semver-compliant changes. release-schedule.md defines explicit lifecycle phases (Preview, Prerelease, Active, Maintenance, LTS) with a stated version table (v10 EOL 2024-09-30, v11 Active, v12 Preview) and, critically, an operational contract for the preview/deprecation path: once a v12 feature flag is 'committed,' its behavior 'is now fixed and won't change,' giving consumers a concrete guarantee to plan migration against. @carbon/upgrade codemods operationalize migration further, and release.yml runs the AVT accessibility suite and CI checks before a GitHub Release is created, gating the release process itself. This satisfies an explicit operational contract for deprecation and migration, beyond mere documentation. It does not reach anchor 4: while the PublicAPI snapshot test gives automated compatibility validation, no public evidence measures migration success or adoption outcomes (adoption dashboards are explicitly excluded from this public evaluation).", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": true, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "release", "locator": "lines 27-72", "path": "files/docs/guides/versioning.md", "snapshot_id": "3eb54126648a690950d8", "source_id": "carbon-release-migration", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/guides/versioning.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "release", "locator": "lines 292-299", "path": "files/docs/guides/versioning.md", "snapshot_id": "3eb54126648a690950d8", "source_id": "carbon-release-migration", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/guides/versioning.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "release", "locator": "lines 18-62", "path": "files/docs/release-schedule.md", "snapshot_id": "3eb54126648a690950d8", "source_id": "carbon-release-migration", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/release-schedule.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "release", "locator": "lines 80-104", "path": "files/docs/preview-code.md", "snapshot_id": "3eb54126648a690950d8", "source_id": "carbon-release-migration", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/preview-code.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "release", "locator": "lines 1-26", "path": "files/docs/migration/v11.md", "snapshot_id": "3eb54126648a690950d8", "source_id": "carbon-release-migration", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/migration/v11.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "release", "locator": "lines 84-120", "path": "files/packages/upgrade/README.md", "snapshot_id": "3eb54126648a690950d8", "source_id": "carbon-release-migration", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/upgrade/README.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "release", "locator": "lines 1-35", "path": "files/packages/upgrade/transforms/__tests__/enable-v12-release-test.js", "snapshot_id": "3eb54126648a690950d8", "source_id": "carbon-release-migration", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/packages/upgrade/transforms/__tests__/enable-v12-release-test.js" }, { "evidence_authority": "release", "locator": "lines 32-57", "path": "files/.github/workflows/release.yml", "snapshot_id": "3eb54126648a690950d8", "source_id": "carbon-release-migration", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/workflows/release.yml" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "release_safety", "critical": true, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "reviewer", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 8, "declared": 8 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "Consumers can rely on a concrete, documented semver/migration contract and an automated compatibility check, but cannot independently verify that migrations succeed in practice (e.g., how many consumers adopt committed v12 flags cleanly before the major bump).", "what_broke": "No confirmed break in the documented deprecation/migration contract, but migration success itself is not measured in public evidence \u2014 only API compatibility is checked via the PublicAPI snapshot test.", "what_to_change": "Publish aggregate, privacy-safe migration/adoption telemetry (e.g., pre-release adoption rate of committed enable-v12-* flags, or post-migration defect reports) to close the gap between the documented migration contract and measured migration success.", "why": "versioning.md documents the PublicAPI snapshot mechanism enforced in CI, and release-schedule.md documents the committed-flag preview contract, but no adoption or migration-success telemetry is present in public evidence; the governance known_limitations explicitly exclude adoption dashboards." }, "generalizability": "system-wide", "label": "Releases, migration, and deprecation", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Compatibility and migration success are validated and measured", "next_anchor_gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Compatibility and migration success are validated and measured", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Carbon operates explicit release-safety contracts through semantic-versioning rules, preview/prerelease/active/maintenance/LTS phases, committed future-major feature flags, versioned migration guides, tested @carbon/upgrade codemods, Public API snapshot checks, automated release workflows with CI and accessibility gates, and supported-version and security-response policies. This meets operational deprecation and migration contracts. Score 4 is not supported because consumer migration outcomes are not publicly measured: no migration completion rates, post-release breakage rates, compatibility incident metrics, or adoption-health evidence was found.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "revise", "scope": { "basis": "governance", "generalizability": "system-wide", "limitations": "Evidence covers public versioning/migration documentation and release automation for the current v11 line and the v12 preview; private migration outcome data and consumer adoption telemetry are outside public evidence per the governance known_limitations.", "subjects": [ "semver versioning policy", "v11/v12 migration guides", "release/version/promote CI workflows", "release-schedule phase and feature-flag commitments" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Deprecation and migration have explicit operational contracts", "verification_depth": "automation-wired", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": true, "current_results": false, "test_definition": true } }, { "assessor_contradiction_warnings": [], "assessor_rationale": "ci.yml runs a real, currently-configured automated gate set on every PR and merge-queue event: dedupe/format/lint checks, unit tests with coverage upload, a sharded Playwright accessibility (AVT) suite whose gate job explicitly fails the pipeline ('exit 1') if any shard does not succeed, and Chromatic visual-regression testing. codeql-analysis.yml adds scheduled (weekly) plus PR-triggered security scanning independent of the main CI run. The e2e AVT test files (Button, ComposedModal, DataTable, Form, Grid, Loading, Notifications, TextInput, Tile, Toggle, UIShell) demonstrate this accessibility gate is concretely implemented with keyboard-navigation and no-violation assertions, not merely declared. release.yml re-runs the AVT suite again before a GitHub Release is created, so gates operate across both PR-time and release-time lifecycle stages, and CodeQL's cron adds continuous scanning outside the PR cycle. Exception handling is documented within these operational gates: the PR template's strikethrough convention for inapplicable checklist items, reviewing-pull-requests.md's guidance to re-run/restart suspected false-positive CI checks, and accessibility.md's process for dismissing DAP false positives during manual audits. This satisfies lifecycle-and-exceptions coverage without reaching anchor 4, since only merge rate is measured on a recurring, published cadence \u2014 there is no public evidence of measured quality trends, exception/waiver frequency, or regression rates.", "binding_mappings": [], "citation_conflict": false, "citations": [ { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 83-124", "path": "files/.github/workflows/ci.yml", "snapshot_id": "c7035884c47c4a634eff", "source_id": "carbon-accessibility-quality", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/workflows/ci.yml" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 240-351", "path": "files/.github/workflows/ci.yml", "snapshot_id": "c7035884c47c4a634eff", "source_id": "carbon-accessibility-quality", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/workflows/ci.yml" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 403-456", "path": "files/.github/workflows/ci.yml", "snapshot_id": "c7035884c47c4a634eff", "source_id": "carbon-accessibility-quality", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/workflows/ci.yml" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 1-35", "path": "files/.github/workflows/codeql-analysis.yml", "snapshot_id": "c7035884c47c4a634eff", "source_id": "carbon-accessibility-quality", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/.github/workflows/codeql-analysis.yml" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 13-23", "path": "files/e2e/components/Button/Button-test.avt.e2e.js", "snapshot_id": "c7035884c47c4a634eff", "source_id": "carbon-accessibility-quality", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/e2e/components/Button/Button-test.avt.e2e.js" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 31-42", "path": "files/docs/guides/accessibility.md", "snapshot_id": "c7035884c47c4a634eff", "source_id": "carbon-accessibility-quality", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/guides/accessibility.md" }, { "evidence_authority": "observed", "locator": "lines 356-425", "path": "files/docs/guides/support.md", "snapshot_id": "850be183e89b93a74a5d", "source_id": "carbon-operating-governance", "source_url": "https://github.com/carbon-design-system/carbon/blob/188d23202ec1092322dee92cf0df9d9958224ae4/docs/guides/support.md" } ], "contradiction_warnings": [], "criterion_id": "quality_enforcement", "critical": true, "evidence_ceiling_is_capability_score": false, "evidence_completeness": "complete", "evidence_decision_source": "reviewer", "evidence_source_coverage": { "captured": 8, "declared": 8 }, "exact_agreement_count": 3, "finding": { "impact": "The public evidence shows real, currently-enforced automated gates (a blocking AVT accessibility job, CodeQL scanning, unit tests) plus documented exception handling, but leaves it unclear how often exceptions are invoked or whether gate effectiveness is monitored and acted on over time.", "what_broke": "No confirmed break in gate coverage, but no public evidence measures quality trends, exception/waiver frequency, or regressions over time beyond a weekly merge-rate figure.", "what_to_change": "Track and periodically report exception/waiver frequency (accessibility false-positive dismissals, PR-checklist strikethroughs) and gate-failure/regression trends, extending the reporting pattern already established for the weekly merge-rate metric.", "why": "accessibility.md's false-positive dismissal and the PR template's strikethrough mechanism show exception handling exists, but no dashboard or periodic report of exception frequency or gate-failure/regression trend is present in the evidence packet, unlike the weekly merge-rate metric." }, "generalizability": "system-wide", "label": "Quality enforcement and feedback", "median_score": 3.0, "next_anchor": "Quality, adoption, exceptions, and regressions are measured and acted on", "next_anchor_gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Quality, adoption, exceptions, and regressions are measured and acted on", "not_applicable": false, "plausible_evidence_ceiling": 4, "rationale": "Carbon operates quality gates across its delivery lifecycle through formatting and lint checks, unit tests with coverage, build and generated-style checks, end-to-end tests, sharded Playwright accessibility tests, Chromatic visual regression, change-triggered and weekly CodeQL scanning, release-time accessibility checks, and published severity and exception-handling rules. These are active workflows with direct assertions and meet automated lifecycle-and-exception enforcement. Score 4 is not supported because no public quality-trend reporting, waiver and exception frequency, regression rates, recurring accessibility trends, or follow-through outcome measurement was evidenced; merge-rate reporting measures throughput rather than quality.", "raw_scores": [ 3, 3, 3 ], "requires_review": true, "review_status": "revise", "scope": { "basis": "governance", "generalizability": "system-wide", "limitations": "Evidence covers CI/CD workflow definitions and a sample of AVT e2e test files across 11 components; it does not establish that every component or pattern in the full catalog has equivalent AVT coverage, and it does not include private DAP audit records referenced by accessibility.md.", "subjects": [ "CI pipeline (lint/test/build/security)", "sharded Playwright AVT accessibility gate", "CodeQL scheduled security scan", "PR checklist exception handling" ] }, "score": 3.0, "score_range": 0.0, "selected_anchor": "Quality gates cover the supported lifecycle and exceptions", "verification_depth": "automation-wired", "verification_signals": { "automation_wiring": true, "current_results": false, "test_definition": true } } ], "critical_unresolved": false, "detail": "review and ownership", "label": "Governance", "provisional_score": 75.0, "provisional_state": "continue", "publishable": true, "review_coverage_pct": 100.0, "score": 75.0, "state": "continue", "unresolved_disagreement": false } ], "assessment_contract_version": 2, "assessor_model": "claude-sonnet-5", "assessor_profile_id": "claude-code/claude-sonnet-5/claude-json/contract-2", "assessor_provider": "claude-code", "assessor_review_warning_count": 3, "comparability_fingerprint": "b89ac9a810f0af5770e9afcc1b5652c36c639ba2a5b6a879631b2afbf6d5aeda", "cutoff_date": "2026-08-22", "disposition": "pilot", "draft": false, "evaluation": "carbon-core-v11-public-diagnostic", "evaluation_name": "Carbon Core v11 public diagnostic", "evidence_complete_pct": 100.0, "evidence_lock_sha256": "77c7c9f588b1cb64f68cc7cf0cfe3a69e1e0229c29a6748ec499a5bcda7ddb72", "evidence_scope": { "governance": "public", "missing_evidence_policy": "unknown-not-absent", "visibility": "public" }, "exact_assessor_agreement_pct": 75.0, "expected_passes": 3, "framework": "design-system-diagnostic/1.0.0", "generated_at_epoch": 1787750944, "limitations": [ "This scorecard describes capability supported by the configured evidence snapshot.", "Missing public evidence is reported as unknown and is not evidence that an internal capability is absent.", "Repeated outputs from one assessor model measure agreement, not statistical independence.", "Deep component findings are scoped to 11 declared component samples across 10 archetypes unless system-wide evidence is cited.", "Structure findings use 1 declared flow sample(s) and 2 declared pattern sample(s).", "Governance findings describe public evidence only." ], "overall_score": 72.5, "provisional_overall_score": 72.5, "publication_status": "approved", "publishable": true, "resolved_review_warning_count": 3, "review_coverage_pct": 100.0, "sampling": { "component_archetypes": [ "action", "content", "data-display", "feedback", "input", "layout", "navigation", "overlay", "selection", "status" ], "component_design_dispositions": { "button": "component", "data-table": "compound", "form": "component", "grid": "component", "loading": "component", "modal": "component", "notification": "component", "text-input": "component", "tile": "component", "toggle": "component", "ui-shell": "compound" }, "component_design_provenance": { "button": "analyst-declared", "data-table": "analyst-declared", "form": "analyst-declared", "grid": "analyst-declared", "loading": "analyst-declared", "modal": "analyst-declared", "notification": "analyst-declared", "text-input": "analyst-declared", "tile": "analyst-declared", "toggle": "analyst-declared", "ui-shell": "analyst-declared" }, "composition_limitations": { "create-configure-save": [ "This is an analyst-declared product flow evaluated from Carbon's published form, layout, responsive, component, and behavioral guidance; Carbon does not publish a corresponding end-to-end Figma flow." ], "empty-state-recovery": [ "Carbon publishes participating components and empty-state guidance but not a composed recovery-state Figma artifact." ], "loading-recovery": [ "Carbon publishes participating components and pattern guidance but not a composed loading-to-recovery Figma artifact." ] }, "composition_provenance": { "create-configure-save": "analyst-declared", "empty-state-recovery": "analyst-declared", "loading-recovery": "analyst-declared" }, "composition_required_surfaces": { "create-configure-save": [ "code", "documentation" ], "empty-state-recovery": [ "code", "documentation" ], "loading-recovery": [ "code", "documentation" ] }, "deep_components": 11, "evaluation_profile": "cross-surface-comprehensive", "flows": 1, "foundation_variable_coverage": "full-file", "governance_limitations": [ "Internal IBM decision records, private Slack activity, adoption dashboards, and governance outcome metrics are outside this public evaluation.", "Preview-site governance claims are supplemental and cannot establish current v11 operation without production or repository corroboration." ], "governance_scope": "public", "patterns": 2, "sampling_fingerprint": "ca6d4c047042442eb146f1eacf9f53e2b79181be0a01eb7f754bfa4d3d9df3ff" }, "score_interpretation": "Scores show how closely the captured evidence meets each rubric anchor. A criterion score of 3 maps to 75 and means the configured anchor is comprehensive, operational, or tested as defined by that criterion.", "scorecard_version": 3, "system": "carbon-core-v11", "system_name": "Carbon Core", "system_role": "anchor", "system_version": "v11.114.0 / @carbon/react 1.114.0", "unresolved_review_warning_count": 0, "visibility": "public" }