uat-reopen-intake

UAT Reopen Intake

Core Principle

When a user challenges an accepted result, the AI must not directly fix, directly re-accept, or silently widen the acceptance scope. It must first decide what failed, what evidence is missing, and who owns the smallest next action.

Required Inputs

• Original receipt or acceptance summary.
• User challenge or reopen reason.
• Evidence actually covered by the original receipt.
• Current failing signal, if any.
• Candidate owner or lane, if known.

Intake Flow

1. Run accepted_scope_recheck: list the route, surface, viewport, data, assertion level, fact source, and receipt identity that were actually covered.
2. Identify the failed_gate_min candidate: the smallest reproducible gate that contradicts the prior acceptance.
3. Classify failure_type:
   • missing_evidence
   • scope_overclaim
   • real_regression
   • owner_boundary_unclear
   • environment_or_harness_gap
   • user_expectation_delta
4. Record missing_evidence: what proof is required before any new acceptance claim.
5. Make next_owner_decision: who should act next, and what exact gate they must satisfy.

Allowed Verdicts

Verdict	Meaning
reopen_required	The challenge exposes a real gap in the prior acceptance scope.
needs_failed_gate_min	The challenge is plausible but lacks the smallest reproducible failing gate.
needs_evidence	The request needs more evidence before ownership or acceptance can be decided.
reroute_owner	The issue belongs to a different owner based on mechanism attribution.
no_reopen_from_current_evidence	Current evidence does not contradict the prior bounded receipt.

Output Contract

verdict:
accepted_scope_recheck:
failed_gate_min_candidate:
failure_type:
missing_evidence:
next_owner_decision:
return_owner_on_fail:
must_not_claim:
remaining_risks:

Common Mistakes

• Treating a user challenge as permission to immediately patch code.
• Saying accepted again without re-checking what was originally covered.
• Using a broad complaint as proof that all related surfaces failed.
• Assigning owner based only on the file where code lives.
• Collapsing environment or harness gaps into product failure.