# noCV engineering task library Content version 5 Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Tests, patches, and runbooks are requested deliverables. They become Outcome Evidence only through a qualified Mission and immutable Evidence IDs. Independent adaptation must be observed under a declared verification policy and cite immutable Evidence IDs. Completing a planning ticket establishes no Ownership Evidence. ## ASAGA — Coordinate equipment returns with explicit compensations A fictional equipment-rental service approves returns through several provider calls. Partial failures leave labels issued without inspections or refunds reported before provider confirmation. **Field:** Distributed systems. **Suggested stack:** TypeScript, PostgreSQL, Provider interfaces. **Engineer value:** Practice durable workflow state, compensation and uncertain outcomes. **Company value:** Review recoverable business operations without assuming distributed transactions. **Delivery agreement:** Ten scoped tickets across three phases. Build a synthetic local service or select a ticket after recreating its prerequisites; estimates exclude setup. ### Setup prerequisites - Create synthetic return records and fake inspection, shipping and refund adapters. - Use integer money values and no real payments or messages. ### Define workflow facts Separate requested actions from observed outcomes. #### ASAGA-101 — Model return workflow steps as durable facts with explicit pending states **Task · Medium priority · Foundational** noCV practice brief v5 · ASAGA-101 · Coordinate equipment returns with explicit compensations Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Define workflow facts. Depends on: No preceding ticket. Difficulty: Foundational. Estimated focused work: 90 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Distributed systems 60% · Backend 40%. Field percentages are editorial estimates of the ticket's engineering focus. They total 100%; they are not measured time, proficiency scores, or ownership evidence. The return row has one status called processing, hiding whether inspection, label issuance or refund is outstanding. Acceptance criteria - Represent each step's request and observed outcome separately. - Define legal workflow transitions and terminal conditions. - Keep unknown provider outcomes distinct from failure. Implementation constraints - Use synthetic provider receipts only. Verification - Trace a successful return through all declared facts. - Timeout shipping after acceptance and retain an unknown label outcome. Deliverables - Return state model Rollout and recovery: Review the state table before adding adapters; preserve ambiguous existing cases as unresolved. Project prerequisites: Create synthetic return records and fake inspection, shipping and refund adapters. Use integer money values and no real payments or messages. Engineer value: Practice durable workflow state, compensation and uncertain outcomes. Company value: Review recoverable business operations without assuming distributed transactions. AI tools are welcome during implementation. Record assumptions, review the result, and verify its behavior. Planning status does not create Outcome Evidence or Ownership Evidence. #### ASAGA-102 — Define stable provider command keys for each return step **Task · Medium priority · Intermediate** noCV practice brief v5 · ASAGA-102 · Coordinate equipment returns with explicit compensations Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Define workflow facts. Depends on: ASAGA-101. Difficulty: Intermediate. Estimated focused work: 150 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Distributed systems 60% · Integrations 40%. Field percentages are editorial estimates of the ticket's engineering focus. They total 100%; they are not measured time, proficiency scores, or ownership evidence. A retry after a lost response creates a second shipping label because each request receives a new key. Acceptance criteria - Bind keys to return identity, step and generation. - Reuse keys for equivalent retries. - Reject changed canonical input under an existing key. Implementation constraints - Do not reuse one key across unrelated provider actions. Verification - Repeat a label request and resolve one fake provider result. - Change shipping destination under the same key and return conflict. Deliverables - Step identity contract and provider-key tests Rollout and recovery: Use stable keys before enabling retries; reconcile legacy ambiguous effects separately. Project prerequisites: Create synthetic return records and fake inspection, shipping and refund adapters. Use integer money values and no real payments or messages. Engineer value: Practice durable workflow state, compensation and uncertain outcomes. Company value: Review recoverable business operations without assuming distributed transactions. AI tools are welcome during implementation. Record assumptions, review the result, and verify its behavior. Planning status does not create Outcome Evidence or Ownership Evidence. #### ASAGA-103 — Write the compensation table for return side effects **Task · Medium priority · Foundational** noCV practice brief v5 · ASAGA-103 · Coordinate equipment returns with explicit compensations Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Define workflow facts. Depends on: ASAGA-101, ASAGA-102. Difficulty: Foundational. Estimated focused work: 120 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Distributed systems 60% · System design 40%. Field percentages are editorial estimates of the ticket's engineering focus. They total 100%; they are not measured time, proficiency scores, or ownership evidence. The team calls every reverse action rollback, although an issued label can be voided and a completed inspection cannot be undone. Acceptance criteria - Classify compensatable, irreversible and unresolved effects. - State preconditions and outcomes for each compensation. - Separate corrective actions from deletion of historical facts. Implementation constraints - Use fake providers and document their exact capabilities. Verification - Map a voidable unused label to its compensation. - Map completed inspection to retained history rather than pretending it can be erased. Deliverables - Compensation decision table Rollout and recovery: Review provider capabilities before orchestrator work; block unsupported automatic reversals. Project prerequisites: Create synthetic return records and fake inspection, shipping and refund adapters. Use integer money values and no real payments or messages. Engineer value: Practice durable workflow state, compensation and uncertain outcomes. Company value: Review recoverable business operations without assuming distributed transactions. AI tools are welcome during implementation. Record assumptions, review the result, and verify its behavior. Planning status does not create Outcome Evidence or Ownership Evidence. ### Persist multi-step progress Make effects idempotent and compensation explicit. #### ASAGA-104 — Persist return progress and next-step dispatch atomically **Story · Medium priority · Advanced** noCV practice brief v5 · ASAGA-104 · Coordinate equipment returns with explicit compensations Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Persist multi-step progress. Depends on: ASAGA-101, ASAGA-102, ASAGA-103. Difficulty: Advanced. Estimated focused work: 240 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Distributed systems 50% · Database engineering 30% · Backend 20%. Field percentages are editorial estimates of the ticket's engineering focus. They total 100%; they are not measured time, proficiency scores, or ownership evidence. Inspection completion commits but the shipping step is never scheduled after a process crash. Acceptance criteria - Commit the observed step fact and outbox dispatch together. - Derive next-step identity from the durable workflow generation. - Make repeated step completion a no-op or explicit conflict. Implementation constraints - Keep remote provider calls outside database transactions. Verification - Crash after inspection fact commit and recover label dispatch. - Repeat the same completion and create no duplicate next step. Deliverables - Workflow/outbox transaction and crash probe Rollout and recovery: Canary synthetic returns; pause advancement if durable dispatch cannot be recorded. Project prerequisites: Create synthetic return records and fake inspection, shipping and refund adapters. Use integer money values and no real payments or messages. Engineer value: Practice durable workflow state, compensation and uncertain outcomes. Company value: Review recoverable business operations without assuming distributed transactions. AI tools are welcome during implementation. Record assumptions, review the result, and verify its behavior. Planning status does not create Outcome Evidence or Ownership Evidence. #### ASAGA-105 — Reconcile shipping acceptance before issuing a replacement label **Task · High priority · Expert** noCV practice brief v5 · ASAGA-105 · Coordinate equipment returns with explicit compensations Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Persist multi-step progress. Depends on: ASAGA-102, ASAGA-104. Difficulty: Expert. Estimated focused work: 300 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Integrations 50% · Distributed systems 50%. Field percentages are editorial estimates of the ticket's engineering focus. They total 100%; they are not measured time, proficiency scores, or ownership evidence. The shipping adapter loses its response after accepting a label, and the workflow currently creates a replacement immediately. Acceptance criteria - Query the original provider command identity before replacement. - Record accepted, rejected and unresolved outcomes explicitly. - Create a new generation only under a declared replacement rule. Implementation constraints - The fake adapter must model accepted-but-unacknowledged requests. Verification - Recover the original accepted label after a response loss. - Make status unavailable and retain unresolved shipping without a second label. Deliverables - Shipping reconciliation and uncertainty probe Rollout and recovery: Enable reconciled retries first; stop automatic replacement when provider identity lookup is unavailable. Project prerequisites: Create synthetic return records and fake inspection, shipping and refund adapters. Use integer money values and no real payments or messages. Engineer value: Practice durable workflow state, compensation and uncertain outcomes. Company value: Review recoverable business operations without assuming distributed transactions. AI tools are welcome during implementation. Record assumptions, review the result, and verify its behavior. Planning status does not create Outcome Evidence or Ownership Evidence. #### ASAGA-106 — Run label compensation only when its original effect is confirmed **Task · Medium priority · Advanced** noCV practice brief v5 · ASAGA-106 · Coordinate equipment returns with explicit compensations Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Persist multi-step progress. Depends on: ASAGA-103, ASAGA-104, ASAGA-105. Difficulty: Advanced. Estimated focused work: 210 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Distributed systems 60% · Integrations 40%. Field percentages are editorial estimates of the ticket's engineering focus. They total 100%; they are not measured time, proficiency scores, or ownership evidence. Pattern topics: Saga (apply). Saga — Apply: Compensate only the confirmed label generation when cancellation races issuance; preserve uncertainty instead of treating a lost response as a failed effect. Pattern topics identify design choices to practice. Read the ticket's acceptance criteria and justify the simplest suitable approach. Tags are not capability or ownership evidence; an untagged ticket has no curated pattern topic assigned. A cancellation request races label issuance and attempts to void a label that may not exist yet. Acceptance criteria - Persist cancellation intent independently of provider completion. - Compensate only the confirmed current label generation. - Keep failed or unknown compensation visible for retry. Implementation constraints - Never mark a return fully cancelled solely because a compensation request was sent. Verification - Cancel after confirmed issuance and record confirmed voiding. - Cancel during unknown issuance and wait for reconciliation before compensation. Deliverables - Cancellation/compensation state transitions Rollout and recovery: Canary cancellation on fake providers; retain unresolved operations for bounded reconciliation. Project prerequisites: Create synthetic return records and fake inspection, shipping and refund adapters. Use integer money values and no real payments or messages. Engineer value: Practice durable workflow state, compensation and uncertain outcomes. Company value: Review recoverable business operations without assuming distributed transactions. AI tools are welcome during implementation. Record assumptions, review the result, and verify its behavior. Planning status does not create Outcome Evidence or Ownership Evidence. #### ASAGA-107 — Authorize refund progression from verified return facts **Bug · High priority · Advanced** noCV practice brief v5 · ASAGA-107 · Coordinate equipment returns with explicit compensations Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Persist multi-step progress. Depends on: ASAGA-101, ASAGA-104, ASAGA-106. Difficulty: Advanced. Estimated focused work: 240 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Security 50% · Distributed systems 30% · Backend 20%. Field percentages are editorial estimates of the ticket's engineering focus. They total 100%; they are not measured time, proficiency scores, or ownership evidence. An administrator can set the aggregate status to inspected and trigger a refund without an actual inspection result. Acceptance criteria - Require a verified inspection fact and matching return generation. - Guard refund requests at the service boundary. - Reject direct status edits that bypass prerequisites. Implementation constraints - This exercise uses synthetic money and a fake refund provider. Verification - Advance a return with a valid inspection receipt. - Attempt refund with a forged status change and verify no provider call. Deliverables - Refund precondition guard and bypass regression Rollout and recovery: Deploy guarded transitions before exposing administrative actions; stop refund dispatch on missing provenance. Project prerequisites: Create synthetic return records and fake inspection, shipping and refund adapters. Use integer money values and no real payments or messages. Engineer value: Practice durable workflow state, compensation and uncertain outcomes. Company value: Review recoverable business operations without assuming distributed transactions. AI tools are welcome during implementation. Record assumptions, review the result, and verify its behavior. Planning status does not create Outcome Evidence or Ownership Evidence. ### Reconcile uncertain work Exercise crashes and publish accurate operational status. #### ASAGA-108 — Show return workflow progress without hiding unresolved compensation **Story · Medium priority · Foundational** noCV practice brief v5 · ASAGA-108 · Coordinate equipment returns with explicit compensations Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Reconcile uncertain work. Depends on: ASAGA-105, ASAGA-106, ASAGA-107. Difficulty: Foundational. Estimated focused work: 90 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Frontend 40% · Distributed systems 30% · Privacy engineering 30%. Field percentages are editorial estimates of the ticket's engineering focus. They total 100%; they are not measured time, proficiency scores, or ownership evidence. The support console shows cancelled even when the label-void request timed out and the customer might still use it. Acceptance criteria - Display business intent separately from confirmed provider outcomes. - Highlight pending reconciliation and compensation states. - Exclude provider credentials and raw customer payloads. Implementation constraints - Use a dedicated support projection with tenant authorization. Verification - Display a fully compensated synthetic return. - Display unknown voiding as unresolved and deny another tenant's workflow. Deliverables - Scoped support workflow projection Rollout and recovery: Enable read-only status first; keep uncertainty visible when adapters are unavailable. Project prerequisites: Create synthetic return records and fake inspection, shipping and refund adapters. Use integer money values and no real payments or messages. Engineer value: Practice durable workflow state, compensation and uncertain outcomes. Company value: Review recoverable business operations without assuming distributed transactions. AI tools are welcome during implementation. Record assumptions, review the result, and verify its behavior. Planning status does not create Outcome Evidence or Ownership Evidence. #### ASAGA-109 — Replay a return workflow from its durable history after an orchestrator crash **Task · Medium priority · Expert** noCV practice brief v5 · ASAGA-109 · Coordinate equipment returns with explicit compensations Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Reconcile uncertain work. Depends on: ASAGA-104, ASAGA-105, ASAGA-106, ASAGA-107. Difficulty: Expert. Estimated focused work: 360 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Distributed systems 70% · Site reliability 30%. Field percentages are editorial estimates of the ticket's engineering focus. They total 100%; they are not measured time, proficiency scores, or ownership evidence. A worker restarts halfway through a return and must decide which steps can resume without repeating side effects. Acceptance criteria - Reconstruct the current state from durable facts and generations. - Reconcile outstanding provider commands before redispatch. - Preserve completed facts and compensation history. Implementation constraints - Inject crashes between every modeled commit and provider response boundary. Verification - Replay a completed and a partially compensated synthetic return. - Crash after refund acceptance and verify recovery does not issue a second refund. Deliverables - Workflow recovery harness and interruption matrix Rollout and recovery: Run before enabling automatic recovery; pause ambiguous workflows while continuing unaffected ones. Project prerequisites: Create synthetic return records and fake inspection, shipping and refund adapters. Use integer money values and no real payments or messages. Engineer value: Practice durable workflow state, compensation and uncertain outcomes. Company value: Review recoverable business operations without assuming distributed transactions. AI tools are welcome during implementation. Record assumptions, review the result, and verify its behavior. Planning status does not create Outcome Evidence or Ownership Evidence. #### ASAGA-110 — Write the operator handoff for a return that cannot be fully compensated **Chore · Medium priority · Intermediate** noCV practice brief v5 · ASAGA-110 · Coordinate equipment returns with explicit compensations Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Reconcile uncertain work. Depends on: ASAGA-103, ASAGA-108, ASAGA-109. Difficulty: Intermediate. Estimated focused work: 150 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Distributed systems 60% · Site reliability 40%. Field percentages are editorial estimates of the ticket's engineering focus. They total 100%; they are not measured time, proficiency scores, or ownership evidence. A provider confirms an effect that cannot be reversed, and support needs to close the technical incident without fabricating a clean rollback. Acceptance criteria - List confirmed effects, attempted corrections and unresolved consequences. - Define authorized manual decisions separately from automated transitions. - Preserve original receipts and incident provenance. Implementation constraints - Use a fabricated return and no actual financial advice or transfer. Verification - Document a successful full compensation case. - Document an irreversible fake-provider outcome without marking it rolled back. Deliverables - Return exception runbook and worked incident Rollout and recovery: Review exceptions before manual action; append resolutions instead of rewriting workflow history. Project prerequisites: Create synthetic return records and fake inspection, shipping and refund adapters. Use integer money values and no real payments or messages. Engineer value: Practice durable workflow state, compensation and uncertain outcomes. Company value: Review recoverable business operations without assuming distributed transactions. AI tools are welcome during implementation. Record assumptions, review the result, and verify its behavior. Planning status does not create Outcome Evidence or Ownership Evidence.