{ "caseStudies": [ { "architecture": [ "Legacy inventory and behavior capture", "SQL contract and stored-procedure boundary review", "ASP.NET/Core service seam extraction", "TypeScript or Angular UI where source-backed", "Parity validation before stronger claims", "Evidence map and resume boundary review" ], "architectureStrategy": [ "Capture legacy behavior and SQL-side business rules before changing implementation boundaries.", "Introduce ASP.NET/Core service seams and testable contracts around modernization work.", "Use comparison screens, generated scenarios, and reviewer-visible evidence to reduce regression risk.", "Keep unsupported metrics out of public claims; show validation method and current evidence instead." ], "businessProblem": "Legacy business systems need modernization while preserving behavior embedded in SQL, forms, and old workflow assumptions.", "caseStudyCategory": "legacy-modernization", "claimBoundaries": [ "This case study summarizes resume-backed professional patterns without exposing private client systems.", "No quantified business outcome, production scale, client confidential detail, or private source code is claimed." ], "constraint": "Modernization must avoid regression in claims, contracts, commissions, logistics, or tax-accounting workflows where behavior matters more than cosmetic rewrites.", "currentStatus": "Resume-backed professional capability pattern summarized for portfolio review; private implementation details are not published.", "evidenceStatus": "Resume-Backed Professional Pattern", "implementationEvidence": [ "Info724 resume lines cite comparison screens and test coverage for rebuilt claims-adjudication behavior.", "LongTerm Software resume lines cite automated integration testing generated from stored procedures to validate thousands of business scenarios.", "Multiple roles cite ASP.NET/Core, C#, Web API, EF Core, ADO.NET, SQL Server, stored procedures, TypeScript, Angular, SOLID, dependency injection, and testing practices." ], "knownLimitation": "No private source code, client data, production metrics, or confidential workflows are exposed.", "knownLimitations": [ "No private source code, client data, production metrics, or confidential workflows are exposed." ], "lastReviewedUtc": "2026-06-10T17:27:13Z", "llmsReviewPath": [ "/llms.txt", "/llms-full.txt", "/api/public-route-index.json", "/api/documentation-map.json" ], "notClaimed": [ "No private implementation details are published", "No unsupported performance, cost, or revenue metric is claimed", "No credential or certification is implied by the case study" ], "problem": "Legacy enterprise systems often contain undocumented business rules in Web Forms, Classic ASP, stored procedures, and operational reporting paths.", "professionalContext": [ "Resume-backed evidence spans Info724, LongTerm Software, ITsavvy/Xerox IT Solutions, Cogent/TMT, and other enterprise roles.", "Use this as a reviewer path into the resume, experience page, .NET/SQL modernization page, and evidence map." ], "professionalContexts": [ "This case study summarizes resume-backed professional patterns without exposing private client systems.", "No quantified business outcome, production scale, client confidential detail, or private source code is claimed." ], "relatedDocs": [ "/docs/dotnet-sql-modernization-evidence.md", "/docs/resume-source-map.md", "/docs/project-evidence-map.md", "/docs/source-governance.md" ], "relatedResumeLine": "Info724 and LongTerm Software resume lines support comparison screens, test coverage, stored-procedure-generated integration testing, ASP.NET/Core, SQL Server, TypeScript/Angular, CI/CD, SOLID, and mentoring claims.", "relatedReviewRoutes": [ "/dotnet-sql-modernization/", "/evidence-map/", "/resume/" ], "relatedRoutes": [ "/case-studies/", "/experience/", "/evidence-map/", "/docs/", "/resume/" ], "relatedStaticJson": [ "/case-studies.json", "/evidence-map.json", "/route-qa-contract.json" ], "relatedUaiMemory": ".uai/dotnet-sql-modernization.uai", "reviewBoundary": "The case study describes modernization and validation methods. It does not disclose private client code or claim unsupported delivery metrics.", "slug": "enterprise-modernization-parity-validation", "sourceStatus": "approved", "suggestedReviewerPath": [ "Download the two-page resume", "Open /experience/", "Open /dotnet-sql-modernization/", "Open /evidence-map/", "Review related Architecture Notes" ], "summary": "A resume-backed case study for modernizing legacy Web Forms, Classic ASP, and SQL-heavy systems while preserving business behavior through comparison screens, generated scenarios, and test coverage.", "technicalChallenge": "Translate behavior into testable seams and typed delivery paths without publishing private system details or inventing metrics.", "technologies": [ "ASP.NET Core", "C#", "SQL Server", "T-SQL", "stored procedures", "TypeScript", "Angular", "EF Core", "ADO.NET", "unit testing", "integration testing", "QUnit", "CI/CD" ], "title": "Enterprise Modernization and Parity Validation", "validationMethod": "Use behavioral comparison screens, generated scenario tests, automated unit/integration testing, and source review before treating new code as behavior-compatible.", "whatThisProves": [ "Legacy modernization planning around behavior preservation", "SQL-heavy business-rule translation into reviewable architecture", "Testing and parity validation as delivery controls", "Technical mentoring and maintainable implementation patterns" ] }, { "architecture": [ "Short-term AI handoff memory for current receiver context", "Project Handoff and File Handoff ledgers", "Long-term Architecture Notes Markdown for reviewed research", "Static JSON and REST discovery surfaces", "Human review boundary before publication" ], "architectureStrategy": [ "Model handoff files as explicit read-order and approval-boundary artifacts.", "Separate generated-needs-review memory from user-approved wording.", "Expose public discovery surfaces while keeping private helper data PHP-guarded.", "Validate JSON mirrors and package manifests as part of each release pass." ], "businessProblem": "AI-assisted engineering loses continuity when source files, decisions, constraints, and current state are scattered across chats, one-off notes, and non-reviewable prompts.", "caseStudyCategory": "ai-assisted-engineering-governance", "claimBoundaries": [ "Claims are limited to public standards, package structure, docs, and handoff workflow design.", "No private client implementation is implied." ], "claimBoundary": "Claims are limited to public standards, package structure, docs, and handoff workflow design.", "constraint": "AI-assisted handoff has to be useful to the next reviewer without granting autonomous execution authority or replacing human approval.", "currentStatus": "Public platform and package workflow; exposed as reviewable portfolio evidence with explicit boundaries.", "evidenceStatus": "Public Platform", "implementationEvidence": [ ".uai front-door files define identity, world context, short-term memory, coding standards, and approval-boundary anchors.", "/docs/ records preserve long-term Architecture Notes instead of repeating long histories inside active memory.", "Public JSON and llms files expose review order while private helpers remain PHP-guarded." ], "knownLimitation": "The memory package is a handoff/review system, not a guarantee that every downstream agent preserves truth or has execution authority.", "knownLimitations": [ "No claim of autonomous execution authority.", "No claim that every downstream agent will preserve truth after handoff.", "Totem and taboo language remains generated-needs-review until Mike supplies approved wording." ], "lastReviewedUtc": "2026-06-10T17:27:13Z", "legacyRisk": "AI-assisted project context can drift, omit source files, or turn short-term chat state into unsourced public copy when handoff artifacts are not separated from reviewed documentation.", "llmsReviewPath": [ "/llms.txt", "/llms-full.txt", "/api/public-route-index.json", "/api/documentation-map.json" ], "notClaimed": [ "No claim that every downstream agent will preserve truth after review", "No claim of autonomous execution authority" ], "problem": "AI-assisted work loses continuity when source files, decisions, constraints, and current state are scattered across chats or ad-hoc notes.", "professionalContext": [ "Claims are limited to public standards, package structure, docs, and handoff workflow design.", "No private client implementation is implied." ], "professionalContexts": [ "Claims are limited to public standards, package structure, docs, and handoff workflow design.", "No private client implementation is implied." ], "relatedDocs": [ "/docs/uai-memory-handoff-map.md", "/docs/long-term-memory-map.md", "/docs/source-governance.md" ], "relatedResumeLine": "Maps to the two-page website resume where source-supported.", "relatedReviewRoutes": [ "/", "/case-studies/", "/evidence-map/", "/research-dashboard/", "/llms-full.txt" ], "relatedRoutes": [ "/", "/case-studies/", "/evidence-map/", "/research-dashboard/", "/llms-full.txt" ], "relatedStaticJson": [ "/case-studies.json", "/evidence-map.json" ], "relatedUaiMemory": ".uai/ai-memory-handoff.uai", "resultOrStatus": "Public platform and package-level evidence surface; private implementation details are not published.", "reviewBoundary": "The case study covers package and handoff governance. Generated-needs-review artifacts are not treated as user-approved wording.", "slug": "uaix-ai-memory-package-wizard", "sourceStatus": "user-confirmed", "suggestedReviewerPath": [ "Open /", "Open /case-studies/", "Open /evidence-map/", "Open /ai-memory-handoff/" ], "summary": "A public-platform case study for AI memory, file handoff, project handoff, and compact AI handoff state mapped to long-term Architecture Notes research.", "technicalChallenge": "Present technical evidence without inventing production status or private implementation details.", "technologies": [ "UAIX", "AI handoff", "AI Memory", "Project Handoff", "File Handoff", "Markdown", "JSON", "WordPress REST" ], "title": "UAIX AI Memory Package Wizard", "validationMethod": "Validate JSON exports, mirror alignment, package read order, and generated-needs-review status for safety anchors before release packaging.", "validationSummary": "Validate by checking JSON parse, mirror alignment, .uai front-door cards, generated-needs-review totem/taboo states, and the homepage-to-evidence-to-machine-readable review path.", "whatThisProves": [ "AI memory as a structured engineering artifact", "Agent handoff with reviewable state", "Separation of compact active memory from durable research" ] }, { "architecture": [ "Reviewed source pipeline", "Metadata/frontmatter", "Trust labels", "Agent instructions", "Retrieval and graph navigation", "Security and governance boundaries" ], "architectureStrategy": [ "Frame knowledge entries around trust labels, route provenance, and claim boundaries.", "Connect human review pages to llms.txt, llms-full.txt, and public JSON route maps.", "Keep research artifacts discoverable without promoting private helper indexes.", "Use operational definitions for specialized research terms." ], "businessProblem": "LLM-facing documentation can become a flat pile of pages with no source state, claim boundary, or reviewer route for humans and AI evaluators.", "caseStudyCategory": "machine-readable-knowledge-governance", "claimBoundaries": [ "Claims are limited to public knowledge-system design and reviewed in context documentation.", "Scale and deployment details are kept to reviewed public evidence." ], "claimBoundary": "Claims are limited to public knowledge-system design and reviewed in context documentation.", "constraint": "Knowledge pages need source labels, trust state, and claim boundaries so humans and AI reviewers do not treat drafts as verified facts.", "currentStatus": "Public platform evidence and source-governance model; not a private deployment or credential issuer.", "evidenceStatus": "Public Platform", "implementationEvidence": [ "Architecture Notes, evidence-map records, public route index, and documentation map expose reviewer paths.", "Research archive remains noindex while curated docs remain public review surfaces.", "Claim-boundary language blocks certification, production, and authority overclaims." ], "knownLimitation": "Scale, deployment internals, and private knowledge-base behavior are not claimed without reviewed source support.", "knownLimitations": [ "No issuer-backed credential or certification claim.", "No claim that every research page is a production enterprise RAG system.", "No private helper index is mirrored to public JSON." ], "lastReviewedUtc": "2026-06-10T17:27:13Z", "legacyRisk": "Generic pages flatten trust state and make it hard for reviewers or AI tools to tell approved claims from research, prototypes, archived context, or generated-needs-review material.", "llmsReviewPath": [ "/llms.txt", "/llms-full.txt", "/api/public-route-index.json", "/api/documentation-map.json" ], "notClaimed": [ "No claim of issuer-backed credential verification", "No claim that every page is a production enterprise RAG system" ], "problem": "LLM-facing knowledge bases need review state, evidence status, and governance boundaries; generic content pages do not expose enough structure.", "professionalContext": [ "Claims are limited to public knowledge-system design and reviewed in context documentation.", "Scale and deployment details are kept to reviewed public evidence." ], "professionalContexts": [ "Claims are limited to public knowledge-system design and reviewed in context documentation.", "Scale and deployment details are kept to reviewed public evidence." ], "relatedDocs": [ "/docs/ai-prompt-architecture.md", "/docs/project-evidence-map.md" ], "relatedResumeLine": "Maps to the two-page website resume where source-supported.", "relatedReviewRoutes": [ "/case-studies/", "/evidence-map/", "/llms.txt", "/api/public-route-index.json", "/api/documentation-map.json" ], "relatedRoutes": [ "/case-studies/", "/evidence-map/", "/llms.txt", "/api/public-route-index.json", "/api/documentation-map.json" ], "relatedStaticJson": [ "/case-studies.json", "/evidence-map.json" ], "relatedUaiMemory": ".uai/project-evidence-map.uai", "resultOrStatus": "Evidence-scoped public knowledge-system case study; scale and production claims are intentionally bounded.", "reviewBoundary": "The case study presents a research/evidence model, not a certification or public standard authority claim.", "slug": "llmwikis-trust-labeled-knowledge", "sourceStatus": "user-confirmed", "suggestedReviewerPath": [ "Open /docs/", "Open /reports/", "Open /research-dashboard/", "Open /research-search/" ], "summary": "A public-platform case study for durable AI-ready knowledge systems, trust labels, source boundaries, governance, and retrieval-friendly content design.", "technicalChallenge": "Present technical evidence without inventing production status or private implementation details.", "technologies": [ "LLM Wiki", "Markdown", "frontmatter", "metadata", "trust labels", "RAG", "semantic search" ], "title": "LLMWikis Trust-Labeled Knowledge", "validationMethod": "Check JSON parse, route index consistency, noindex boundary, and evidence labels before promoting research content into public claims.", "validationSummary": "Validate by checking noindex inventory, route QA counts, documentation-map parse, and public copy for unsupported certification or production claims.", "whatThisProves": [ "Knowledge systems designed for humans and agents", "Governance-aware content packaging", "Retrieval-ready documentation structure" ] }, { "architecture": [ "Cognitive packets with provenance", "Quarantine-first review", "Passive metadata validation", "Local endpoint discovery boundaries", "Human review and no-secret handling" ], "architectureStrategy": [ "Describe hostile-context and zero-blind-import concepts as reviewable boundaries rather than certification claims.", "Use static machine-readable manifests for discovery without adding runtime execution privileges.", "Keep WordPress as the runtime and JavaScript as progressive enhancement.", "Document what is public, noindex, private, or generated-needs-review." ], "businessProblem": "AI agents need useful discovery and memory exchange without broad tool authority, private-network probing, or unreviewed packet adoption.", "caseStudyCategory": "ai-agent-safety-boundaries", "claimBoundaries": [ "This case study reflects strategy-backed architecture direction and requires user review.", "Present as architecture direction and portfolio evidence according to its evidence stage." ], "claimBoundary": "This case study reflects strategy-backed architecture direction and requires user review.", "constraint": "AI agents need useful discovery without broad probing authority, unreviewed memory adoption, or private-data access.", "currentStatus": "Review-stage prototype and architecture boundary model; useful for technical discussion but not a production-access claim.", "evidenceStatus": "Prototype / Technical Review", "implementationEvidence": [ "Research and AI terminology are presented with claim boundaries.", "Private helper data remains under inc/private-data/ rather than public JSON.", "Machine-readable discovery files state that discovery is not permission for probing or execution." ], "knownLimitation": "No runtime MCP, private-network probing, autonomous execution, secret handling, or production deployment is claimed by this portfolio package.", "knownLimitations": [ "No private-network probing.", "No secret storage or credential validation.", "No live MCP tool execution is added by this WordPress theme pass." ], "lastReviewedUtc": "2026-06-10T17:27:13Z", "legacyRisk": "Agent-facing discovery can be misread as permission for probing, tool execution, private route crawling, or unreviewed memory adoption if the boundary is not explicit.", "llmsReviewPath": [ "/llms.txt", "/llms-full.txt", "/api/public-route-index.json", "/api/documentation-map.json" ], "notClaimed": [ "No private-network probing", "No secret storage", "No unreviewed autonomous adoption of memory" ], "problem": "AI agents need machine-readable discovery and memory exchange without receiving broad execution authority or unreviewed memory adoption.", "professionalContext": [ "This case study reflects strategy-backed architecture direction and requires user review.", "Present as architecture direction and portfolio evidence according to its evidence stage." ], "professionalContexts": [ "This case study reflects strategy-backed architecture direction and requires user review.", "Present as architecture direction and portfolio evidence according to its evidence stage." ], "relatedDocs": [ "/docs/ai-prompt-architecture.md", "/docs/source-governance.md", "/docs/quarantined-claims.md" ], "relatedResumeLine": "Maps to the two-page website resume where source-supported.", "relatedReviewRoutes": [ "/case-studies/", "/research-dashboard/", "/route-qa-contract.json", "/.well-known/ai-agent.json", "/llms-full.txt" ], "relatedRoutes": [ "/case-studies/", "/research-dashboard/", "/route-qa-contract.json", "/.well-known/ai-agent.json", "/llms-full.txt" ], "relatedStaticJson": [ "/case-studies.json", "/evidence-map.json" ], "relatedUaiMemory": ".uai/ai-prompt-architecture.uai", "resultOrStatus": "Architecture-direction and technical-review surface; source status remains conservative where implementation evidence requires user review.", "reviewBoundary": "The case study describes AI safety architecture concepts as static review surfaces. It does not add live tool execution or probing permission.", "slug": "neuralwikis-localendpoint-ai-boundaries", "sourceStatus": "Design Review", "suggestedReviewerPath": [ "Open /llms-full.txt", "Open /.well-known/ai-agent.json", "Open /api/openapi-3.1.json", "Open /api/agents.json" ], "summary": "A review-stage prototype case study for Python, MySQL, cognitive packet review, passive validation, and no-execution safety boundaries.", "technicalChallenge": "Present technical evidence without inventing production status or private implementation details.", "technologies": [ "Python", "MySQL", "TypeScript", "JSON", "metadata validation", "passive validation", "memory firewall" ], "title": "NeuralWikis / LocalEndpoint AI Boundaries", "validationMethod": "Validate no private helper mirror, public discovery boundary language, JSON manifests, and noindex utility inventory.", "validationSummary": "Validate by scanning discovery text for private probing, execution, certification, and runtime-MCP overclaims; verify public JSON parses without private helper data.", "whatThisProves": [ "Security-boundary thinking for AI agents", "Python-oriented metadata validation patterns", "Source-bounded memory exchange design" ] }, { "architecture": [ "Server-rendered WordPress proof page", "Angular/RxJS implementation sample", "SSR/SSG route strategy", "TypeScript DTO/OpenAPI contracts", "RxJS data-access store", "Python validation/enrichment boundary", "Human review gate" ], "architectureStrategy": [ "Present TypeScript and Angular experience through source-backed route and resume evidence.", "Document front-end/data-access seams without claiming unavailable production metrics.", "Connect related architecture notes to the public review path.", "Keep modern front-end work aligned with server-rendered WordPress constraints in this package." ], "businessProblem": "Public portfolios and commercial web applications need rich interactivity without sacrificing crawlability, accessibility, or clear API/review boundaries.", "caseStudyCategory": "typescript-angular-architecture", "claimBoundaries": [ "Angular is confirmed at Info724 and LongTerm, and the Modern Angular/RxJS material adds current framework fluency for technical reviewers.", "Each project page identifies its own technology context.", "The example supports architecture review and discussion." ], "claimBoundary": "Angular is confirmed at Info724 and LongTerm, and the Modern Angular/RxJS material adds current framework fluency for technical reviewers.", "constraint": "Typed front-end and AI/data workflows must stay crawlable, testable, and reviewable while respecting the source-backed Angular work history.", "currentStatus": "Source-backed Angular experience plus reference architecture discussion material.", "evidenceStatus": "Reference Architecture", "implementationEvidence": [ "Resume confirms an Angular/TypeScript AI documentation review app at Info724.", "Resume confirms extensive Angular work on corporate tax accounting software at LongTerm Software.", "Docs and examples provide reviewer discussion material for typed contracts, RxJS, testing, SSR/SSG, and service-boundary design." ], "knownLimitation": "The Angular/RxJS reference material is not a claim that every current framework pattern was used in each employer system.", "knownLimitations": [ "Current examples are public-safe architecture context, not disclosure of private client code.", "No unsupported production metrics or private deployment details are claimed.", "Angular remains a supporting experience lane under the primary portfolio stack." ], "lastReviewedUtc": "2026-06-10T17:27:13Z", "legacyRisk": "Modern front-end work can become hard to review when UI behavior, API contracts, rendering strategy, and service boundaries are documented separately or only in code.", "llmsReviewPath": [ "/llms.txt", "/llms-full.txt", "/api/public-route-index.json", "/api/documentation-map.json" ], "notClaimed": [ "Current Angular/RxJS architecture context", "Private project source remains outside public summaries", "Generated output uses review checkpoints before publication" ], "problem": "Modern AI/data workflows need typed front ends, asynchronous API handling, pipeline boundaries, and human publication controls.", "professionalContext": [ "Angular is confirmed at Info724 and LongTerm, and the Modern Angular/RxJS material adds current framework fluency for technical reviewers.", "Each project page identifies its own technology context.", "The example supports architecture review and discussion." ], "professionalContexts": [ "Angular is confirmed at Info724 and LongTerm, and the Modern Angular/RxJS material adds current framework fluency for technical reviewers.", "Each project page identifies its own technology context.", "The example supports architecture review and discussion." ], "relatedDocs": [ "/docs/angular22-rxjs-enterprise-reference.md", "/docs/angular-seo-rendering-strategy.md", "/docs/angular-rxjs-data-access-patterns.md", "/docs/angular-python-api-contracts.md", "/docs/angular-security-boundary.md", "/docs/angular-testing-strategy.md" ], "relatedResumeLine": "Info724 experience includes an Angular/TypeScript AI documentation review app for an Info724 client; LongTerm Software Solutions includes Angular work on corporate tax accounting software plus C#, TypeScript, JavaScript, MVC, ASP.NET Core, Web API, Classic ASP, SQL Server, and CI/CD pipeline usage.", "relatedReviewRoutes": [ "/angular-python-architecture/", "/docs/angular-rxjs-data-access-patterns.md", "/docs/angular-seo-rendering-strategy.md", "/resume.json" ], "relatedRoutes": [ "/case-studies/", "/career/", "/experience/", "/docs/", "/resume/" ], "relatedStaticJson": [ "/angular22-rxjs-reference.json", "/case-studies.json", "/evidence-map.json" ], "relatedUaiMemory": ".uai/angular22-rxjs-enterprise.uai", "resultOrStatus": "Confirmed/professional experience lane plus current architecture examples for technical review.", "reviewBoundary": "The case study preserves only source-backed Angular/TypeScript and integration evidence and avoids unsupported production claims.", "slug": "angular-python-architecture", "sourceStatus": "Design Review", "suggestedReviewerPath": [ "Open /angular-python-architecture/", "Open /experience/", "Open /career/", "Open /case-studies/angular-python-architecture/" ], "summary": "Enterprise Angular/RxJS architecture example with TypeScript DTOs, RxJS data access, Python service boundaries, SSR/SSG, hydration, testing, and security.", "technicalChallenge": "Model Angular/RxJS, TypeScript, and Python service-layer expertise while connecting confirmed Angular experience to current enterprise front-end architecture.", "technologies": [ "Modern Angular", "RxJS", "TypeScript", "SSR", "SSG", "Hydration", "OpenAPI", "Python", "FastAPI-style reference", "Vitest", "Playwright", "CSP", "Trusted Types" ], "title": "Angular / RxJS / Python Service Boundary Architecture", "validationMethod": "Keep professional claims tied to resume lines; label reference architecture separately; validate JavaScript syntax and responsive component behavior.", "validationSummary": "Validate by linting JavaScript, scanning rendered/source text for run-together tokens, and checking responsive navigation at component level.", "whatThisProves": [ "Enterprise Angular/RxJS architecture reasoning", "SEO-first rendering patterns", "Typed API boundary design", "Human-reviewed AI/data publication flow" ] }, { "architecture": [ "Browser-local text analyzer", "Alias families and typo normalization", "Evidence ledger and project map", "Proof pages and docs", "Source-status warnings" ], "architectureStrategy": [ "Keep the matcher optional rather than the dominant homepage surface.", "Explain what pasted text is used for and provide a manual evidence-map fallback.", "Use bounded client-side scoring and clear labels for reviewer trust.", "Link matched skills back to route-backed evidence instead of unsupported claims." ], "businessProblem": "Recruiters and technical reviewers need a fast way to map role language to evidence without fake fit percentages or hidden ATS-style scoring.", "caseStudyCategory": "portfolio-evidence-routing", "claimBoundaries": [ "Resolver output is a guided evidence map, not a credential or hiring guarantee.", "Evidence status warnings are preserved when evidence is generated or ready for review." ], "claimBoundary": "Resolver output is a guided evidence map, not a credential or hiring guarantee.", "constraint": "Role matching should help recruiters without becoming fake ATS scoring, external tracking, or hidden data collection.", "currentStatus": "Public portfolio utility and evidence-routing aid.", "evidenceStatus": "Public Platform", "implementationEvidence": [ "Homepage Role Matcher states pasted text stays browser-local.", "Evidence cards connect role terms to resume, docs, projects, and static JSON.", "The resolver avoids fake fit percentages and exposes clarification gaps." ], "knownLimitation": "Not an ATS, credential check, hiring guarantee, background check, or external integration.", "knownLimitations": [ "No private ATS integration.", "No fake fit percentage or hiring prediction.", "No external tracking, analytics, or server-side storage of pasted text." ], "lastReviewedUtc": "2026-06-10T17:27:13Z", "legacyRisk": "Recruiters and reviewers may miss relevant evidence if a dense portfolio requires manual keyword guessing, but fake scoring or tracking would damage credibility.", "llmsReviewPath": [ "/llms.txt", "/llms-full.txt", "/api/public-route-index.json", "/api/documentation-map.json" ], "notClaimed": [ "No private ATS integration", "No fake fit percentage", "No external tracking" ], "problem": "Recruiters and technical reviewers need faster mapping from job text to verified evidence without fake scoring or exaggerated claims.", "professionalContext": [ "Resolver output is a guided evidence map, not a credential or hiring guarantee.", "Evidence status warnings are preserved when evidence is generated or ready for review." ], "professionalContexts": [ "Resolver output is a guided evidence map, not a credential or hiring guarantee.", "Evidence status warnings are preserved when evidence is generated or ready for review." ], "relatedDocs": [ "/docs/capability-resolver-map.md", "/docs/resume-source-map.md", "/docs/project-evidence-map.md" ], "relatedResumeLine": "Maps to the two-page website resume where source-supported.", "relatedReviewRoutes": [ "/", "/role-fit/", "/evidence-map/", "/portfolio-review-guide/", "/assets/js/site.js" ], "relatedRoutes": [ "/", "/role-fit/", "/evidence-map/", "/portfolio-review-guide/", "/assets/js/site.js" ], "relatedStaticJson": [ "/case-studies.json", "/evidence-map.json" ], "relatedUaiMemory": ".uai/capability-resolver.uai", "resultOrStatus": "Public portfolio workflow aid; not a hiring guarantee or credential surface.", "reviewBoundary": "The matcher is a portfolio navigation aid, not an automated hiring decision system or evidence substitute.", "slug": "mikekappel-capability-resolver", "sourceStatus": "approved", "suggestedReviewerPath": [ "Open /role-fit/", "Open /evidence-map/", "Open /portfolio-review-guide/", "Open /case-studies/mikekappel-capability-resolver/" ], "summary": "A public-platform case study for browser-local job matching, alias normalization, evidence cards, proof pages, and claim-boundary warnings.", "technicalChallenge": "Present technical evidence without inventing production status or private implementation details.", "technologies": [ "JavaScript", "WordPress", "REST", "JSON", "HTML", "CSS", "AI memory metadata" ], "title": "MikeKappel.com Capability Resolver", "validationMethod": "Run JavaScript syntax checks, component QA for menu/tool behavior, and text-extraction scans for concatenated card text.", "validationSummary": "Validate by checking the tool copy, browser-local privacy statement, disabled copy state, keyboard behavior, and no fabricated fit scores.", "whatThisProves": [ "Portfolio as proof system", "Evidence-first recruiter workflow", "Agent-readable profile design" ] } ], "caseStudyReviewModel": [ "Problem / constraint", "Legacy risk or business-rule ambiguity", "Architecture strategy", "Implementation evidence", "Validation method", "Result or current status", "Known limitation / not claimed", "Related routes, docs, or machine-readable records" ], "claimBoundaries": [ "No unsupported metrics, client names, private code, or production outcomes are introduced.", "Each case study is bounded to public package evidence and source-backed contact/resume context." ], "claim_boundaries": [ "Docs and case-study records preserve status and evidence status before content is reused.", "Generated-review-stage material must not be promoted without user confirmation." ], "generatedUtc": "2026-06-10T18:26:20Z", "generated_utc": "2026-06-10T18:26:20Z", "metadataConversionQaPolish": { "installedRuntimeQaClaimed": false, "preserved": [ "human-first primary navigation", "modernization-first homepage", "selected-project anchor", "direct contact first", "secondary research utilities", "noindex report boundary" ], "runtimeBoundary": "Do not claim runtime QA until the installed WordPress runtime reports v3.120.0 on static and REST health surfaces.", "scope": "small metadata, CTA fit, contact-row, selected-project, and focus/overflow polish only", "version": "3.120.0" }, "professionalContexts": [ "Docs and case-study records preserve status and evidence status before content is reused.", "Generated-review-stage material must not be promoted without user confirmation." ], "reviewPath": [ "/", "/case-studies/", "/evidence-map/", "/llms-full.txt", "/api/public-route-index.json" ], "sourceStatus": "approved", "source_status": "approved", "v8820": { "summary": "Human-facing browser QA and presentation polish pass." }, "v887Routes": { "career": "/career/", "evidenceMap": "/evidence-map/", "reviewQueue": "/review-queue/", "sitemap": "/sitemap.xml" }, "v901DesignBriefNotes": { "boundary": "Case studies use source-backed facts and avoid unsupported client names, private implementation details, metrics, certifications, or production claims.", "contactResolution": "The design brief mentioned Melrose Park, IL, but the approved resume/contact artifacts in this package show Cicero, IL; Cicero remains the package value.", "focus": "case-study evidence deepening and design-brief review path refinement" }, "v902SourceBoundaryNotes": { "deepEvidenceRecords": 6, "rule": "Case studies remain source-backed and avoid invented client names, dates, metrics, certifications, and private implementation details.", "status": "reviewed-no-new-unsupported-claims" }, "version": "3.126.0" }