Add daily logs and templates for project fidelity

- Created daily log entries for May 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, and 21, capturing work done, findings, and next steps.
- Established a daily logs index for easy navigation of daily notes.
- Developed templates for daily logs, decisions, meeting notes, people, systems, and work items to standardize documentation.
- Introduced base files for filtering and displaying various types of project knowledge, including daily notes, decisions, people, systems, work items, and workstreams.
- Added maps for current work, fidelity apps, and fidelity domain to enhance project navigation and context.

workspaces/fidelity/project-knowledge/03-context/ios/project-swift-guidance.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+type: guidance
+project: fidelity
+status: active
+updated: 2026-04-17
+tags:
+  - ios
+  - fidelity
+---
+# Project Swift Guidance
+
+## Goal
+
+Apply Swift/iOS advice in a way that fits Fidelity's XFlow, Fid4, XFlowViewMaker, and FTFrameworks environment.
+
+---
+
+## Fidelity-Specific Constraints
+
+- XFlow is backend-driven; UI behavior may be service/configuration driven, not purely local Swift code.
+- Fid4 is the real consumer validation target for many issues.
+- XFlowViewMaker and FTFrameworks can affect whether a fix is visible in Fid4.
+- CocoaPods and private podspec-repo behavior are part of the real integration surface, not just build tooling details.
+- REST migration constraints still matter; do not assume REST is active by default.
+- Some work happens behind feature flags, especially risky consumer-impact changes.
+
+---
+
+## SwiftUI / XFlow Priorities
+
+- Treat modal presentation, dismissal sequencing, and lifecycle boundaries as high-risk areas.
+- Be careful when removing UIKit bridges such as `UIHostingController`; preserve consumer behavior and rollout safety.
+- When discussing SwiftUI architecture, include how the change affects:
+  - backend-driven flow rendering
+  - consumer app integration
+  - feature flags
+  - validation in Fid4
+  - UIKit/SwiftUI parity
+
+---
+
+## Answering Rules
+
+- If the user asks a general Swift question, answer generally but include a Fidelity/XFlow note when relevant.
+- If the user asks about a code change, separate modern best practice from what is safe for the current project.
+- If codebase constraints are unknown, say what must be confirmed: deployment target, Xcode version, module ownership, feature flag path, and consumer validation path.
+- If the work touches dependency propagation, published specs, or consumer upgrade behavior, explicitly include CocoaPods and podspec-repo reasoning instead of treating them as secondary operational noise.
+- If the user asks whether CocoaPods, podspec repositories, or dependency propagation is good/bad practice, corroborate with current CocoaPods/Apple/Swift documentation and then adapt the recommendation to Fidelity's release path.
+- Do not recommend replacing CocoaPods with SPM just because SPM is modern; first identify current integration constraints, private specs usage, release ownership, consumer app expectations, and migration cost.
+- For manager-ready explanations, connect the technical recommendation to scope, risk, and validation.