From 03386aa22fdc6d517756958f3a337314f45f72d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "david.delagneau" Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 16:36:52 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] feat: Add analysis context and review guidance for ApexKitV3 impact write-up --- ai/logs/2026-04-14.md | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/ai/logs/2026-04-14.md b/ai/logs/2026-04-14.md index 3e44172..18e4cc1 100644 --- a/ai/logs/2026-04-14.md +++ b/ai/logs/2026-04-14.md @@ -55,3 +55,6 @@ - The requested write-up should cover what change is being requested, build-error and component impact, what needs retesting, which flows/components are affected, and the overall risk including whether consumers should be involved in testing. - Jeff explicitly wants the document framed as carrying impact and consumer-testing risk if the change requires more than small adjustments. - Confirmed wording note: Quy should be treated as Scrum Master in prompts and write-ups, not described generically as a stakeholder. +- Additional analysis context for the ApexKitV3 investigation: the Swift version change was reverted back to Swift 5, and the Pods were updated to the latest versions including `ApexKitSwiftUI 1.27.14`. The current question is whether the ApexKitV3-removal impact remains the same under that updated dependency baseline. +- Document-review guidance for the ApexKitV3 impact write-up: it should not read as if code changes have already been made, should stay understandable for a non-technical reader, and should avoid overcommitting on production impact where SwiftUI-vs-legacy-path usage is still being verified. +- Additional document-review guidance: if the write-up already recommends consumer testing, it should not hedge with wording like `if the change extends beyond small cleanup`. The risk section should stay internally consistent and reflect the current conclusion directly.