A credible search implementation has a narrow promise: define searchable content, query normalization, ranking, filters, permissions, empty results, and feedback. Treat adding an index cannot correct unclear content identity or unauthorized results as a design input, not an edge case to document later.
Scope: Search
This scope covers retrieval mechanics: document identity, indexing, query interpretation, filtering, ranking, freshness, permissions, and evaluation. Interface states and refinement behavior belong to the search experience.
Turn "done" into observable behavior: Search
Acceptance criteria for search should identify the actor, starting state, action, durable result, denied path, repeated action, and recovery evidence. The interface may report success while adding an index cannot correct unclear content identity or unauthorized results. The criterion therefore has to compare visible feedback with the source-traced dataset and reproducible calculation.
Cover the states that change the decision: Search
Test ready, empty, invalid, denied, delayed, duplicate, partial, successful, and recovered states where they apply. Add a case in which an input is missing, duplicated, late, or inconsistent with a previous run. Each case should say whether input is preserved, whether retry is safe, and which record a reviewer inspects. Avoid criteria such as "works" or "implemented" because two reviewers can interpret them differently.
Test authority, not visibility: Search
The expected behavior must hold for an allowed actor, a denied actor, a revoked role, and a direct request that bypasses the normal interface. A denial should leave protected state unchanged and produce a useful audit record without exposing secrets. For search, the accountable actor is the analyst or operator acting on a recorded result.
Attach evidence to every important claim: Search
Use source identifiers, timestamps, query output, calculation breakdowns, and rerun comparisons. Record the environment, configuration, and time range so another reviewer can reproduce the result. A passing test supports only the behavior it exercised; it does not prove every security, accessibility, performance, or operational claim. Monitor freshness as a release signal.
Decision map: Search
- Ranking. Name the owner, authoritative record, expected state, and denial behavior for this part of search.
- Filters. Document the normal transition, one interrupted transition, and the smallest safe recovery.
- Permissions. Attach a reproducible test, dated result, and reviewer who accepts the remaining risk.
- Empty results. State the input, output, permission boundary, and removal condition before adding automation.
- Feedback. Record how repeated action behaves and which evidence distinguishes retry from duplication.
Boundary cases: Search
- When the recorded value for ranking changes after filters is stored, name which value wins and how the losing state is reconciled.
- If evidence for permissions becomes unavailable while the search request is in progress, preserve enough context to distinguish rejection from partial completion.
- A repeated action involving empty results should return the existing result or expose the possible duplicate effect before retry.
- A denied change to feedback must leave authoritative state untouched and create an audit record that reveals no secret.
- Recovery should restore the smallest trustworthy state first, then verify the visible search outcome against the maintained record.
Measure the decision, not activity: Search
Track freshness and false-positive review rate. Before collecting results for search, define each measure's population, environment, time window, and owner. Activity is useful only when it clarifies whether the protected search outcome became safer or easier to recover.
Set the investigation threshold for search in advance. The acceptance review should also name the permitted response, the evidence required to close the issue, and the next review date. Stop collecting search data when it no longer distinguishes success, denial, delay, duplication, or recovery, or when it no longer changes a decision.
Sources and local proof: Search
These primary references document platform behavior relevant to search. For search, those references establish terminology and constraints; they do not verify the local implementation.
- Set Up Events
- Creating Helpful, Reliable, People-First Content
- Authorization Cheat Sheet
- Forms Tutorial
- Internationalization Quick Tips
Any publishable search claim still needs dated local evidence: configuration, test output, screenshots, logs, queries, or recovery results from the named product. The acceptance review should say exactly which artifact supports each important claim.
A related InMyDraft example: Search
InMySignal provides a local example of an inspectable product boundary relevant to search. Its project catalog records this implementation detail: Lead and opportunity scores are computed from five factors — contact completeness, source coverage, digital presence, verification confidence, and commercial activity — with the breakdown shown per company.
The comparison between InMySignal and search is deliberately narrow. It shows how one product makes state and evidence visible; it does not prove that every search recommendation has been implemented. Use the InMySignal example to review search, not as a substitute for testing the product in scope.
Review checklist: Search
- Given a valid starting state, the analyst or operator acting on a recorded result can complete the intended search outcome.
- Invalid and unauthorized requests leave the source-traced dataset and reproducible calculation unchanged.
- A repeated action does not duplicate a protected side effect.
- The team can demonstrate that it can run representative queries including misspellings, no-match cases, and restricted records.
- Failure and recovery produce evidence another reviewer can reproduce.
A search decision is ready for the next stage when another accountable person can reproduce the evidence, explain the failure boundary, and perform the recovery without relying on the original author's memory.
