{ "baseline_score": 72.5, "claim_boundary": "Carbon can only earn these points after the work is complete and the evaluation is run again. Some of the evidence may already exist inside IBM.", "editorial": { "area_findings": { "bindings": { "summary": "Carbon has useful design-to-code mappings, but some Tile and TableRow properties remain disabled, incomplete, or unexplained.", "what_to_change": "Restore, replace, or explicitly classify unresolved Tile and TableRow mappings. Then fail a release when Figma properties, Code Connect mappings, or released APIs differ without an approved exception.", "what_we_found": "Most sampled Figma controls map to code, while Tile and TableRow retain unresolved or commented mappings.", "why_it_matters": "Unexplained differences make designers, engineers, and agents guess which surface is authoritative." }, "components": { "summary": "Carbon\u2019s components and accessibility guidance are mature, but this study did not find published state and responsive results for the full library.", "what_to_change": "Start with one canonical, machine-readable field-error pattern and an automated check that verifies the message is connected to its field. Then define and publish the states, themes, screen sizes, keyboard paths, and assistive-technology checks required across the component library.", "what_we_found": "Core components are well documented. The study did not find one current published view of required states, viewports, interactions, and assistive-technology results across the library.", "why_it_matters": "Teams need to know that components work in the difficult conditions users actually encounter." }, "foundations": { "summary": "Carbon has mature tokens, themes, and delivery. This study did not find a published result verifying every supported output together.", "what_to_change": "First confirm whether IBM already checks Figma variables against every released token package and theme. If not, add a release check that blocks unexplained differences and identifies the affected output.", "what_we_found": "Carbon has a clear token hierarchy, four supported themes, and published foundation packages.", "why_it_matters": "Strong shared values help products stay consistent across brands, themes, and platforms." }, "governance": { "summary": "Carbon has clear ownership and operating guidance. This study did not find public trend data showing how those practices perform over time.", "what_to_change": "Set targets for reviews, migrations, adoption, exceptions, and regressions. Publish the trends and record the staffing or process decision made when a target is missed.", "what_we_found": "Contribution, release, migration, and ownership practices are documented and active.", "why_it_matters": "Leaders need to see whether reviews move quickly, migrations finish, and quality problems close." }, "structure": { "summary": "Carbon documents grid, composition, pattern, and focus behavior well. This study did not find published results from repeated tests of complete product flows.", "what_to_change": "Select the product flows Carbon officially supports and test them end to end across focus, validation, loading, recovery, themes, and screen sizes.", "what_we_found": "Carbon documents reusable layout and product patterns. The study did not find published results from repeated flow tests across states and breakpoints.", "why_it_matters": "Products fail at the seams between components, even when each component works by itself." } }, "bottom_line": "Carbon is a mature design system with clear product value. The highest-value next work is to publish one canonical, machine-readable field-error pattern and enforce it in automated tests across supported forms. Carbon can then apply the same approach to other critical states and complete product flows, block unexplained Figma-to-code differences before release, and measure whether migrations and quality work succeed in practice.", "central_finding": "Carbon supports accessible validation, but its guidance did not produce that behavior reliably in the controlled form task. Two of three runs displayed an error without programmatically connecting it to the field. This study did not find published results showing that comparable interaction failures are consistently caught across Carbon\u2019s supported forms and product flows. IBM may run broader checks internally; sharing current results would allow them to be assessed in a re-run.", "concrete_example": "In two of three controlled runs of the create, configure, and save flow, the validation message appeared visually but was not connected to the Carbon TextInput with aria-describedby or aria-errormessage. Carbon supports the correct relationship, but the available guidance did not make it reliable for the agent.", "headline": "Carbon is mature, but critical accessibility behavior is still too easy to implement incorrectly.", "hero": "IBM\u2019s Carbon design system was reviewed to answer two questions: How well does Carbon stay aligned from design through production? Can an AI coding agent use it to produce working software?", "hero_asset": "ibm", "phase_summaries": { "next": { "action": "Generate a versioned manifest of Figma variables and properties, DTCG token files, released packages, Code Connect mappings, typed component APIs, and approved exceptions. Compare it in release CI and block any unexplained difference.", "decision": "Whether a Figma, token, mapping, or component API change is safe to release.", "finish_line": "A seeded mismatch fails the release check and identifies the exact surface, property, or token involved.", "owner": "Carbon foundations, Figma library, React, Code Connect, and build-infrastructure teams", "problem": "This study did not find a published result from one automated check spanning Figma variables, token packages, component properties, Code Connect mappings, and approved exceptions. IBM may already run parts of this check internally.", "save": "CI results, compatibility reports, coverage, drift trends, and approved exceptions", "title": "Keep Figma and released code aligned before changes ship." }, "now": { "action": "Publish one canonical, machine-readable field-error pattern, enforce the field-to-error relationship in automated accessibility tests across supported form flows, then repeat the controlled task.", "decision": "Whether Carbon field-error guidance is reliable enough for agent-assisted form work and people using assistive technology.", "finish_line": "Supported form tests and three new controlled runs connect every visible error to its field and pass interaction and accessibility checks.", "owner": "Carbon component, accessibility, documentation, and developer-experience teams", "problem": "Two of three agent runs displayed a validation message without programmatically connecting it to the Carbon TextInput.", "save": "Published guidance, machine-readable examples, runtime test results, and accessibility output", "title": "Make accessible field errors reliable for people and agents." }, "operate": { "action": "For each quarterly review, publish the target, current result, trend, accountable owner, and next action for reviews, migrations, adoption, exceptions, and regressions. Record the staffing or process decision made when a target is missed.", "decision": "Where leadership should invest, delay a migration, or change staffing, ownership, or process.", "finish_line": "The team can show clear trends for adoption, exceptions, migrations, review speed, and quality.", "owner": "Carbon governance, program, release, and design-infrastructure leadership", "problem": "This study did not find public trend data for adoption, migrations, exceptions, review speed, or quality. IBM may track these internally; sharing current results would allow them to be assessed in a re-run.", "save": "A metrics pack with baselines, targets, trends, owners, and follow-up decisions", "title": "Use operating results to decide where Carbon needs investment." }, "scale": { "action": "List the states, themes, screen sizes, keyboard paths, assistive-technology checks, and layout rules required for each supported component and flow. Run that checklist in CI and publish the current pass, failure, and exception results.", "decision": "Whether a supported component or product flow is ready across Carbon's promised conditions.", "finish_line": "Required components, states, flows, themes, and breakpoints pass with current results and owned exceptions.", "owner": "Carbon component, pattern, accessibility, product, and quality teams", "problem": "This study did not find one published coverage view spanning component states, screen sizes, assistive technology, layout rules, and end-to-end product flows. IBM may already run some or all of these checks internally.", "save": "Component quality matrix, flow results, accessibility output, viewport coverage, and exception register", "title": "Test complete product experiences across the whole system." } }, "publisher_name": "IBM", "publisher_url": "https://carbondesignsystem.com/", "readiness_verdict": "Carbon has mature foundations, but two of three form-task runs failed to connect a visible error to its field for screen readers. Carbon can support agent-assisted form work with human validation, but unattended form implementation would be premature until field errors are explicit and automatically verified.", "report_kicker": "Design system report", "report_title": "IBM\u2019s Carbon design system report", "roadmap_heading": "How Carbon can get better", "standfirst": "Carbon already gives teams mature shared values, components, layouts, patterns, and operating guidance. In controlled testing, two of three form-flow runs showed an error without reliably identifying its field to assistive technology. Carbon\u2019s next step is to make the correct field-error relationship explicit for people and agents, enforce it in automated form tests, and apply the same discipline to other critical states and flows.", "strengths": [ "A mature four-theme foundation with a clear token model and published packages", "A broad component library with detailed usage and accessibility guidance", "Reusable layout, composition, and product-pattern guidance", "Clear public contribution, release, migration, and ownership practices", "Guidance strong enough for an AI agent to produce working software in 13 of 15 test runs" ], "why_it_matters": "A form can look correct while withholding essential information from a screen-reader user. When the relationship between a field and its error depends on someone remembering an easy-to-miss rule, designers, engineers, and agents can all produce a plausible interface that fails in use. One canonical pattern and an automated relationship check would turn that hidden requirement into a release safeguard." }, "evidence_reconciliation": { "purpose": "Before funding new work, check whether IBM teams already run the tests, dashboards, and reviews requested by this study. If they do, the IBM team can share current results for a re-run instead of rebuilding an existing capability.", "requests": [ "Current checks that compare Figma variables, token packages, Code Connect mappings, and released component APIs", "Current reports showing state, responsive, interaction, accessibility, and assistive-technology coverage across the component library", "Current end-to-end results for supported product flows, patterns, themes, and breakpoints", "Current reports showing adoption, exceptions, migration completion, review times, and quality trends" ], "required": true }, "initiatives": [ { "acceptance_criteria": [ "Every supported form flow has an automated check for the relationship between an invalid field and its visible error.", "The visible error is programmatically connected to the TextInput in every new run.", "Interaction and accessibility checks pass in three new runs in a row.", "The agent uses supported Carbon components and attributes without inventing a replacement API." ], "actions": [ "Publish one complete Carbon field-error example that connects FormLabel, TextInput, helper text, and the validation message.", "State when to use aria-describedby or aria-errormessage and show the resulting accessible relationship.", "Include the recipe in machine-readable component metadata, agent context, and working examples.", "Add automated accessibility assertions for the field-to-error relationship to every supported Carbon form flow.", "Repeat the create, configure, and save task three times after the guidance changes." ], "classification": "observed-agent-failure", "criterion_impacts": [], "decision_enabled": "Whether Carbon field-error guidance is reliable enough for agent-assisted form work and people using assistive technology.", "dependencies": [], "effort": "small", "evidence_to_retain": [ "Published field-error guidance and component examples", "Machine-readable agent guidance or component metadata", "Three new run outputs with interaction and accessibility results" ], "horizon": "now", "id": "agent-field-error-association", "outcome": "Designers, engineers, and agents can follow one clear Carbon pattern that makes a visible validation message programmatically identifiable as the error for its field.", "problem": "In two of three controlled runs, the agent displayed a repository-name validation message but did not connect it to the Carbon TextInput with aria-describedby or aria-errormessage. Sighted users could see the error, but assistive technology could not reliably identify which field it described.", "projected_overall_lift": 0.0, "score_effect": "agent-performance", "sequence": 1, "suggested_owners": [ "Carbon TextInput or form component owner", "Carbon accessibility owner", "Carbon documentation and developer-experience owners" ], "title": "Make field errors understandable every time", "type": "agent-reliability" }, { "acceptance_criteria": [ "Every supported design and code output appears in a dated compatibility report.", "A seeded token or property mismatch fails the check and identifies the exact surfaces involved.", "Every disabled or surface-specific mapping has a documented rationale, owner, and review date.", "The report shows current mapping coverage, compatibility, drift, and approved exceptions." ], "actions": [ "Generate a versioned manifest listing Figma variables and properties, DTCG token names and values, released packages, Code Connect mappings, and typed component APIs.", "Restore, replace, or explicitly classify the disabled Tile and TableRow mappings.", "Run a release check that fails on unexplained differences and records owned, expiring exceptions.", "Publish compatibility, mapping coverage, drift, and approved-exception results for supported outputs and themes." ], "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_impacts": [ { "area": "foundations", "criterion_id": "token_taxonomy", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "foundations", "criterion_id": "primitives", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "foundations", "criterion_id": "modes", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "foundations", "criterion_id": "delivery", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "bindings", "criterion_id": "naming_parity", "from_score": 2.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "bindings", "criterion_id": "contract_correspondence", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "bindings", "criterion_id": "token_parity", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "bindings", "criterion_id": "traceability", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 } ], "decision_enabled": "Whether a token, Figma, Code Connect, or component API change is safe to release.", "dependencies": [ "agent-field-error-association" ], "effort": "program", "evidence_to_retain": [ "Cross-surface manifest and comparison implementation", "Passing and intentionally failing CI results", "Compatibility, mapping-coverage, drift, and exception reports", "Approved exception and mapping-decision register" ], "horizon": "next", "id": "cross-surface-alignment", "outcome": "A change to a shared value, component name, property, mapping, or deprecation status cannot ship with an unexplained difference between Figma and released code.", "problem": "Carbon has mature foundations and useful design-to-code mappings. This study did not find a published result from one release check that compares Figma variables, generated token packages, component properties, Code Connect mappings, deprecations, and approved exceptions. IBM may already run parts of this check internally. Some Tile and TableRow mappings remain commented or incomplete in the evaluated sources.", "projected_overall_lift": 11.25, "score_effect": "readiness", "sequence": 2, "suggested_owners": [ "Carbon foundations and token-build owners", "Carbon Figma library and Code Connect owners", "Carbon React and build-infrastructure owners" ], "title": "Keep Figma and code aligned before release", "type": "capability-investment" }, { "acceptance_criteria": [ "Every supported component and pattern shows which states and environments apply.", "Current results cover themes, viewports, interaction, keyboard, and assistive technology.", "A broken layout, focus path, validation relationship, or recovery flow fails an automated check.", "Every failure and approved exception has an owner, review date, and recorded resolution." ], "actions": [ "Define required normal, loading, empty, error, disabled, recovery, and permission states for each component type.", "Test required states across supported themes, screen sizes, keyboard paths, and assistive technology.", "Turn important grid, composition, and focus rules into executable checks.", "Build repeatable tests for form validation, create-and-save, loading recovery, empty states, modal focus, and responsive layout.", "Publish a per-release report with the required checks, current pass rate, failures, owners, exception expiration dates, and completed fixes." ], "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_impacts": [ { "area": "components", "criterion_id": "core_coverage", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "components", "criterion_id": "state_coverage", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "components", "criterion_id": "responsive_behavior", "from_score": 2.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "components", "criterion_id": "accessibility_behavior", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "structure", "criterion_id": "layout_primitives", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "structure", "criterion_id": "composition_guidance", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "structure", "criterion_id": "patterns_templates", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "structure", "criterion_id": "interaction_ownership", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 } ], "decision_enabled": "Whether a supported component or product flow is ready across required themes, states, assistive technology, and screen sizes.", "dependencies": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "effort": "program", "evidence_to_retain": [ "Versioned component and pattern quality matrix", "CI results for states, themes, viewports, interaction, and accessibility", "End-to-end flow and layout-conformance results", "Usage, failure, and exception register" ], "horizon": "scale", "id": "system-quality-matrix", "outcome": "For every supported component and pattern, teams can see which conditions apply, which tests passed, what is exempt, and who owns any remaining problem.", "problem": "Carbon documents component behavior, accessibility, grids, composition, and product patterns. This study did not find one current published quality matrix covering required states, themes, viewports, assistive technology, layout rules, and complete product flows. IBM may maintain broader internal results.", "projected_overall_lift": 11.25, "score_effect": "readiness", "sequence": 3, "suggested_owners": [ "Carbon component and pattern maintainers", "Carbon accessibility and quality owners", "Product teams representing supported flows" ], "title": "Test complete product experiences across the whole system", "type": "capability-investment" }, { "acceptance_criteria": [ "Ownership and review reports show targets, current results, trends, and follow-up.", "Breaking changes include compatibility results and migration-completion rates.", "Adoption, quality, regression, and exception reports show age, owner, and closure.", "A recurring governance review records decisions and completed follow-up actions." ], "actions": [ "Set targets for owner response time, review time, safe releases, migration completion, adoption, exception age, and resolved regressions.", "Publish dated reports with the current result, target, trend, accountable owner, and next action.", "Track migrations, retired APIs, exceptions, and regressions until each item closes.", "Record decisions and staffing or process changes made after reviewing the results." ], "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_impacts": [ { "area": "governance", "criterion_id": "ownership", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "governance", "criterion_id": "contribution_review", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "governance", "criterion_id": "release_safety", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 }, { "area": "governance", "criterion_id": "quality_enforcement", "from_score": 3.0, "to_score": 4.0 } ], "decision_enabled": "Where leadership should invest, delay a migration, or change staffing, ownership, or process.", "dependencies": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "effort": "program", "evidence_to_retain": [ "Ownership and review service report", "Compatibility and migration outcome report", "Adoption, quality, regression, and exception dashboard", "Governance review decisions and completed actions" ], "horizon": "operate", "id": "governance-outcome-measurement", "outcome": "Leaders can see whether reviews are timely, migrations complete, quality problems close, and ownership works as intended, then make decisions when results fall short.", "problem": "Carbon clearly documents ownership, contribution, release, migration, and quality practices. This study did not find public trend data showing how quickly those processes move, whether migrations finish, or whether adoption, exceptions, and regressions improve over time. IBM may track these results internally and can share them for a re-run.", "projected_overall_lift": 5.0, "score_effect": "readiness", "sequence": 4, "suggested_owners": [ "Carbon program and governance leads", "Repository, Figma library, and release owners", "Quality and design-infrastructure leadership" ], "title": "Use operating results to change staffing and process", "type": "capability-investment" } ], "review_status": "approved", "reviewed_at": "2026-08-26", "roadmap_format": "ds-eval/implementation-roadmap@1", "score_ceiling": [ { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "foundations", "area_label": "Foundations", "ceiling_anchor": "The token graph is validated, measured, and maintained across consumers", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "token_taxonomy", "current_score": 3.0, "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.", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Token taxonomy and semantics", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "The token graph is validated, measured, and maintained across consumers", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "foundations", "area_label": "Foundations", "ceiling_anchor": "Primitive coverage and adoption are measured and governed", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "primitives", "current_score": 3.0, "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.", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Primitive completeness", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Primitive coverage and adoption are measured and governed", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "foundations", "area_label": "Foundations", "ceiling_anchor": "Mode compatibility is continuously validated across supported consumers", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "modes", "current_score": 3.0, "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.", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Modes and adaptation", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Mode compatibility is continuously validated across supported consumers", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "foundations", "area_label": "Foundations", "ceiling_anchor": "Delivery contracts are validated and migration impact is measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "delivery", "current_score": 3.0, "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.", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Consumable delivery and versioning", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Delivery contracts are validated and migration impact is measured", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 2.0, "area": "bindings", "area_label": "Bindings", "ceiling_anchor": "Parity is automatically checked and drift is measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "naming_parity", "current_score": 2.0, "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.", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Naming parity", "maximum_overall_lift": 2.5, "next_anchor": "Names are systematically aligned across surfaces", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "bindings", "area_label": "Bindings", "ceiling_anchor": "Machine-readable mappings continuously validate shared contracts and explicitly classify surface-specific controls", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "contract_correspondence", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Machine-readable mappings continuously validate shared contracts and explicitly classify surface-specific controls", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Design-to-code contract correspondence", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Machine-readable mappings continuously validate shared contracts and explicitly classify surface-specific controls", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "bindings", "area_label": "Bindings", "ceiling_anchor": "Cross-surface token parity is automatically validated", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "token_parity", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Cross-surface token parity is automatically validated", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Token parity", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Cross-surface token parity is automatically validated", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "bindings", "area_label": "Bindings", "ceiling_anchor": "Traceability and deprecation drift are automatically enforced", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "traceability", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Traceability and deprecation drift are automatically enforced", "initiative_ids": [ "cross-surface-alignment" ], "label": "Traceability and deprecation", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Traceability and deprecation drift are automatically enforced", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "components", "area_label": "Components", "ceiling_anchor": "Gaps, adoption, and component health are measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "core_coverage", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Gaps, adoption, and component health are measured", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Core component coverage", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Gaps, adoption, and component health are measured", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "components", "area_label": "Components", "ceiling_anchor": "State contracts are executable, tested, and measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "state_coverage", "current_score": 3.0, "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.", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Normal, recovery, and permission states", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "State contracts are executable, tested, and measured", "recommended_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)." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 2.0, "area": "components", "area_label": "Components", "ceiling_anchor": "Responsive behavior is continuously tested across the matrix", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "responsive_behavior", "current_score": 2.0, "gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Components adapt consistently across supported conditions", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Responsive behavior", "maximum_overall_lift": 2.5, "next_anchor": "Components adapt consistently across supported conditions", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "components", "area_label": "Components", "ceiling_anchor": "Assistive-technology coverage and regressions are continuously measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "accessibility_behavior", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Assistive-technology coverage and regressions are continuously measured", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Accessibility behavior", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Assistive-technology coverage and regressions are continuously measured", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "structure", "area_label": "Structure", "ceiling_anchor": "Layout use and exceptions are validated and measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "layout_primitives", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Automated layout-conformance results, governed exception tracking, and adoption measurement across supported consumer surfaces are needed to establish validated and measured layout use.", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Layout primitives", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Layout use and exceptions are validated and measured", "recommended_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)." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "structure", "area_label": "Structure", "ceiling_anchor": "Composition rules are executable or automatically validated", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "composition_guidance", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "No automated or executable validation (lint rule, Code Connect enforcement, or test) of these composition contracts is present, which anchor 4 requires.", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Composition guidance", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Composition rules are executable or automatically validated", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "structure", "area_label": "Structure", "ceiling_anchor": "Pattern use, outcomes, and lifecycle are measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "patterns_templates", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "No evidence of measured pattern use, outcomes, or lifecycle tracking (adoption metrics, deprecation cadence) is present, which anchor 4 requires.", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Patterns and templates", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Pattern use, outcomes, and lifecycle are measured", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "structure", "area_label": "Structure", "ceiling_anchor": "Cross-composition contracts are executable and continuously verified", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "interaction_ownership", "current_score": 3.0, "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.", "initiative_ids": [ "system-quality-matrix" ], "label": "Navigation, focus, and state ownership", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Cross-composition contracts are executable and continuously verified", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "governance", "area_label": "Governance", "ceiling_anchor": "Ownership health and service expectations are measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "ownership", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Ownership health and service expectations are measured", "initiative_ids": [ "governance-outcome-measurement" ], "label": "Named ownership", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Ownership health and service expectations are measured", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "governance", "area_label": "Governance", "ceiling_anchor": "Review quality, throughput, and outcomes are measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "contribution_review", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Review quality, throughput, and outcomes are measured", "initiative_ids": [ "governance-outcome-measurement" ], "label": "Contribution and review", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Review quality, throughput, and outcomes are measured", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "governance", "area_label": "Governance", "ceiling_anchor": "Compatibility and migration success are validated and measured", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "release_safety", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Compatibility and migration success are validated and measured", "initiative_ids": [ "governance-outcome-measurement" ], "label": "Releases, migration, and deprecation", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Compatibility and migration success are validated and measured", "recommended_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." }, { "anchor_points_needed": 1.0, "area": "governance", "area_label": "Governance", "ceiling_anchor": "Quality, adoption, exceptions, and regressions are measured and acted on", "ceiling_score": 4.0, "classification": "evidence-gap", "criterion_id": "quality_enforcement", "current_score": 3.0, "gap": "Additional evidence must satisfy the next anchor: Quality, adoption, exceptions, and regressions are measured and acted on", "initiative_ids": [ "governance-outcome-measurement" ], "label": "Quality enforcement and feedback", "maximum_overall_lift": 1.25, "next_anchor": "Quality, adoption, exceptions, and regressions are measured and acted on", "recommended_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." } ], "scorecard_fingerprint": "a2d002e860812cfec3ddfea47a667adb2ae4af8a73223d67b65e42814b603e41", "system": "carbon-core-v11", "system_name": "Carbon Core", "target_score": 100.0, "visibility": "public" }