Demo tracker¶
Internal demo-readiness tracker for the Theegarten-Pactec release-check story. This page is written for RapidDraft planning and demo preparation. It should not be used as a customer leave-behind unless the wording is first converted into polished pilot-facing language.
<- Release check demo ยท Demo day checklist
Readiness scoring¶
Scores use three separate 0-100 axes so implementation reality, user experience, and demo risk do not get mixed together.
| Axis | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Backend reality | Implemented, tested, deterministic, deployable. |
| UX/demo polish | Clear workflow, visual polish, and smooth interaction. |
| Demo confidence | Reliable enough to show in the Theegarten meeting. |
| Feature | Backend | UX | Demo | Current read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Narrative to product alignment | 60 | 55 | 60 | Demo story must be framed as an Agent-assisted release/BOM slice until the full CIM package workflow exists. |
| Theegarten release-check narrative | 80 | 70 | 65 | Story is clear in wiki; live walkthrough must match the current STEP/Agent path. |
| Agent shell and artifact-first flow | 80 | 60 | 68 | Solid local foundation, but prompt routing and artifact UX still need rehearsal polish. |
| STEP/model loading and canvas | 75 | 70 | 58 | Usable locally; runtime/OCC and fixture repeatability caveats remain. |
| Pure DFM sidebar | 78 | 68 | 62 | Working, but deep scan/progress timing is a live-demo risk. |
| Fusion removal / DFM guardrail | 88 | 85 | 78 | Cleanup is well evidenced; keep proving pure DFM remains unaffected. |
| Draft BOM from STEP/model | 72 | 62 | 55 | Useful first slice with real backend support, not final Theegarten cockpit. |
| Drawing Checks issue set into BOM | 62 | 50 | 48 | Issue-set evidence can feed BOM/release rows, but row-level UX and drawing navigation are weak. |
| DraftLint inspection characteristics JSON | 20 | 15 | 15 | Planned 56-characteristic inspection path is not live as a first-class RapidDraft integration. |
| Release report artifact/embed | 38 | 32 | 30 | Report/artifact renderers exist; this is not yet a full release cockpit. |
| Full Theegarten release cockpit UI | 25 | 25 | 25 | Concept exists, not built as a dedicated workflow. |
| Excel export to quality template | 15 | 10 | 15 | Template reviewed, export not built. |
| Vision enrichment for BOM | 45 | 30 | 22 | Advisory only; do not put it on the critical demo path yet. |
| Knowledge/RAG for EPLAN docs | 50 | 40 | 30 | Pipeline exists, but Theegarten EPLAN ingestion/query proof is still needed. |
| Deployment/testing branch readiness | 35 | 28 | 28 | Needs integration branch cleanup and Railway/local-AI validation. |
| Demo script and screenshots | 70 | 58 | 55 | Screenshot report exists; needs one locked scripted path. |
Workflow tracker¶
The demo should be judged as a customer workflow, not as a list of backend capabilities.
| Step | User workflow moment | UX clarity | Visual polish | Failure risk | Evidence available | Next fix |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Open RapidDraft in expert/demo mode. | Medium | Medium | Medium | Local expert mode works. | Define exact demo URL, branch, model, and local AI state before each rehearsal. |
| 2 | Load Theegarten-style model/package. | Medium | Medium | Medium | STEP model screenshots exist. | Pick the canonical model/package and make the load path repeatable. |
| 3 | Ask Agent to generate release/BOM review. | Medium | Medium | Medium | Agent BOM prompts work locally. | Use one scripted prompt and avoid broad, ambiguous chat requests. |
| 4 | See quick deterministic BOM first. | Medium | Medium | Medium | Draft BOM artifact is working. | Keep vision out of the blocking path and label deterministic evidence clearly. |
| 5 | Open BOM artifact in canvas. | High | Medium | Low | Artifact-first canvas flow is validated. | Polish table density, source badges, and row hierarchy. |
| 6 | Inspect drawing/model evidence and missing fields. | Low | Low | High | Partial: BOM row/source badges and Drawing Checks issue-set evidence. | Build a clearer release cockpit or evidence inspector for demo use. |
| 7 | Run or show DFM findings without Fusion. | Medium | Medium | Medium | Pure DFM guardrail screenshot exists. | Use Light DFM for live demo unless Deep scan has been rehearsed immediately before the meeting. |
| 8 | See optional Knowledge/EPLAN context. | Low | Low | High | Knowledge pipeline exists, but EPLAN ingestion workflow needs validation. | Index the EPLAN folder and test deterministic inventory/search/answer prompts. |
| 9 | Preview/export quality workbook. | Low | Low | High | Quality template has been reviewed; export is not built. | Build Excel export preview and server-side workbook generation. |
| 10 | End with engineer approval / PLM handoff story. | Medium | Medium | Medium | Wiki story is clear. | Add a final approval screen or scripted close that reinforces CIM Database stays in charge. |
Locked demo path¶
Use this as the default rehearsal path until the full Theegarten cockpit exists.
| Order | Demo action | Guardrail |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Open the testing branch in expert/demo mode. | Confirm branch, server, local-AI, and Knowledge service before the rehearsal. |
| 2 | Load one canonical Theegarten-style STEP/package. | Do not switch fixtures mid-demo; document the exact fixture once chosen. |
| 3 | Ask the Agent for a release/BOM review with one scripted prompt. | Avoid broad prompts that can route to Knowledge or generic chat. |
| 4 | Show the deterministic BOM/release artifact first. | Vision enrichment is optional background evidence, not a blocker. |
| 5 | Open the artifact in the canvas and inspect source/evidence badges. | Be explicit where evidence is model-derived, Drawing Checks-derived, or still missing. |
| 6 | Show pure DFM separately and without Fusion. | Prefer Light DFM live; use recorded screenshots if Deep scan timing is uncertain. |
| 7 | Optionally show Knowledge/EPLAN only after ingestion is proven. | If EPLAN indexing is not validated, keep it as a planned capability. |
| 8 | Close with the CIM/PLM handoff story. | RapidDraft supports engineer review; it does not auto-release or replace PLM. |
Current next steps¶
- Keep Fusion removed while protecting pure DFM with tests and browser validation.
- Clean and merge the Agent/BOM integration branch into a testing branch.
- Make the BOM artifact the most polished demo surface.
- Build the release cockpit shape around drawing evidence, STEP/model BOM, missing fields, source provenance, and review state.
- Validate Knowledge/RAG ingestion for the EPLAN documents.
- Add Theegarten Excel export preview and workbook generation.
- Add background vision enrichment only as optional advisory evidence.
- Create one repeatable demo script with screenshots and known fallback paths.
Agent review workflow¶
Use one Codex goal for this work:
Deliver a scored Theegarten demo tracker in the wiki and centralized plan, then run independent Cursor review and present suggested changes.
Review gates:
| Gate | Reviewer | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Build check | Confirm the Theegarten wiki builds. |
| 2 | Codex self-review | Check for missing backend, UX, and demo-readiness gaps. |
| 3 | Cursor Composer review | Independently inspect wiki, plan, code, and demo goals without editing. |
| 4 | User decision | Decide whether to keep Codex's tracker or incorporate Cursor suggestions. |
Suggested read-only reviewer split:
| Reviewer | Focus |
|---|---|
| Backend readiness reviewer | RapidDraft branch, Agent/BOM/DFM/Knowledge/local-AI implementation reality. |
| UX workflow reviewer | Whether the story feels coherent to a Theegarten engineer. |
| Wiki/doc reviewer | Page clarity, navigation placement, source quality, and customer-facing wording risk. |
| Cursor Composer reviewer | Independent critique and score correction suggestions. |
Additional Cursor Review Notes¶
These recommendations were not promoted into the active tracker yet, but should remain visible for future demo planning.
- Treat minutes 45-50 in the demo-day plan as recorded/PDF-backed until drawing-zone navigation is live.
- Cross-link the BOM contract's finished slices to the final screenshot branch and commit SHA after the integration branch is merged.
- Keep STEP/OCC/runtime caveats visible in deployment readiness, especially for fresh machines and Railway/testing environments.
- Avoid making Vision a central demo promise until the local vision route is stable and produces engineering-specific output.
- Update
demo-day.mdwith exact fallback artifacts after the canonical fixture and scripted path are chosen.
Sources¶
- Centralized plan:
/Users/adeelyj/Library/CloudStorage/OneDrive-Personal/100_Knowledge/203_TextCAD/01_Product_Project_Management/00_Project_Management_n_skills/01_tracks/rapiddraft-core/plans/260531_theegarten-draftlint-quality-bom/README.md - Release story: Release check demo
- Meeting flow: Demo day checklist
- Quality forms and template context: Quality forms
- RapidDraft Agent BOM contract:
/Users/adeelyj/code/rapiddraft/45_co2/rapiddraft_utumpitch-fusionremoved/docs/contracts/bom-generation-contract.md - Screenshot validation report:
/Users/adeelyj/code/rapiddraft/45_co2/rapiddraft_utumpitch-fusionremoved/docs/validation/260602_rapiddraft_agent_bom_validation_screenshots.pdf
Open Questions¶
- Which model/package is the canonical Theegarten demo fixture?
- Should the first live demo use static DraftLint JSON, live DraftLint ingestion, or both?
- Which EPLAN documents must be indexed before the next rehearsal?
- Should the release cockpit be implemented as a polished mock first or built directly on live backend data?
- Which quality workbook sheet is the first export target: release check, inspection plan, EMPB, or evidence register?