# 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. ## BRELEASE — Risk-based release acceptance A fictional retailer is changing delivery options. Its regression suite is large, but no one can explain whether inventory, totals, or recovery behavior is covered. **Field:** Quality engineering. **Suggested stack:** TypeScript, Playwright, PostgreSQL. **Engineer value:** Practice risk analysis, exploratory testing, and evidence-based release decisions. **Company value:** Provide a reviewable release assessment tied to customer-impacting invariants. **Delivery agreement:** Deliver the acceptance suite, exploratory notes, and a local release rehearsal; no live transactions. ### Setup prerequisites - Build a minimal local checkout fixture with synthetic prices, inventory, and a mock delivery provider. ### Scope release risk Translate the change into observable business invariants. #### BRELEASE-101 — Map delivery-option changes to checkout invariants **Task · Medium priority · Foundational** noCV practice brief v5 · BRELEASE-101 · Risk-based release acceptance Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Scope release risk. Depends on: No preceding ticket. Difficulty: Foundational. Estimated focused work: 60 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Quality engineering 100%. 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 release checklist says 'test checkout' without defining what must remain true. Acceptance criteria - List total, inventory, address, and order-state invariants. - Rank scenarios by impact and change exposure. - Identify dependencies the local fixture cannot represent. Implementation constraints - Keep priorities explainable without a composite quality score. Verification - Trace one delivery change to affected invariants. - Show an unrelated account setting outside this release scope. Deliverables - Release risk map. Rollout and recovery: Review the map before selecting tests; retain explicit uncovered risks. Project prerequisites: Build a minimal local checkout fixture with synthetic prices, inventory, and a mock delivery provider. Engineer value: Practice risk analysis, exploratory testing, and evidence-based release decisions. Company value: Provide a reviewable release assessment tied to customer-impacting invariants. 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. #### BRELEASE-102 — Create boundary partitions for delivery eligibility **Task · Medium priority · Intermediate** noCV practice brief v5 · BRELEASE-102 · Risk-based release acceptance Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Scope release risk. Depends on: BRELEASE-101. Difficulty: Intermediate. Estimated focused work: 120 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Quality engineering 100%. Field percentages are editorial estimates of the ticket's engineering focus. They total 100%; they are not measured time, proficiency scores, or ownership evidence. Only ordinary postal codes are tested, while minimum basket size and service boundaries determine eligibility. Acceptance criteria - Partition valid, excluded, and malformed destinations. - Cover basket thresholds below, at, and above the boundary. - State the expected reason when no option is eligible. Implementation constraints - Use fictional destinations and rates. Verification - Exercise representative values from every partition. - Reject malformed input without calling the mock provider. Deliverables - Eligibility case table. Rollout and recovery: Version the case table with the delivery rules. Project prerequisites: Build a minimal local checkout fixture with synthetic prices, inventory, and a mock delivery provider. Engineer value: Practice risk analysis, exploratory testing, and evidence-based release decisions. Company value: Provide a reviewable release assessment tied to customer-impacting invariants. 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. ### Exercise critical paths Test changed behavior and failure recovery. #### BRELEASE-103 — Verify totals remain stable across delivery-option switching **Bug · High priority · Intermediate** noCV practice brief v5 · BRELEASE-103 · Risk-based release acceptance Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Exercise critical paths. Depends on: BRELEASE-102. Difficulty: Intermediate. Estimated focused work: 150 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Quality engineering 60% · Frontend 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. Changing options twice sometimes charges the first option while displaying the second. Acceptance criteria - Use the selected option consistently in displayed and submitted totals. - Invalidate stale quotes when inputs change. - Prevent submission while the current quote is unresolved. Implementation constraints - Represent amounts in exact minor units. Verification - Switch options rapidly and verify the final total. - Resolve an old quote late and confirm it cannot overwrite selection. Deliverables - Quote-race regression. Rollout and recovery: Ship with the corrected quote binding; revert the option feature if totals diverge. Project prerequisites: Build a minimal local checkout fixture with synthetic prices, inventory, and a mock delivery provider. Engineer value: Practice risk analysis, exploratory testing, and evidence-based release decisions. Company value: Provide a reviewable release assessment tied to customer-impacting invariants. 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. #### BRELEASE-104 — Test inventory reservation when checkout is abandoned **Task · High priority · Advanced** noCV practice brief v5 · BRELEASE-104 · Risk-based release acceptance Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Exercise critical paths. Depends on: BRELEASE-101. Difficulty: Advanced. Estimated focused work: 210 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Quality engineering 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. Reservations survive failed checkout and make available stock look sold out. Acceptance criteria - Expire abandoned reservations by the declared deadline. - Preserve completed-order reservations. - Make repeated expiry processing idempotent. Implementation constraints - Control time and use only synthetic inventory. Verification - Expire an abandoned reservation. - Race completion with expiry and verify the chosen invariant. Deliverables - Reservation lifecycle tests. Rollout and recovery: Keep expiry processing observable; pause the changed flow if stock reconciliation fails. Project prerequisites: Build a minimal local checkout fixture with synthetic prices, inventory, and a mock delivery provider. Engineer value: Practice risk analysis, exploratory testing, and evidence-based release decisions. Company value: Provide a reviewable release assessment tied to customer-impacting invariants. 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. #### BRELEASE-105 — Check assistive-technology behavior for delivery errors **Task · High priority · Intermediate** noCV practice brief v5 · BRELEASE-105 · Risk-based release acceptance Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Exercise critical paths. Depends on: BRELEASE-102. Difficulty: Intermediate. Estimated focused work: 150 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Accessibility 50% · Quality engineering 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. Eligibility failures appear visually below the form but keyboard users receive no useful indication. Acceptance criteria - Associate errors with the relevant inputs. - Move or announce focus consistently after failed submission. - Preserve entered values for correction. Implementation constraints - Use semantic HTML and owned accessible components. Verification - Complete the flow using a keyboard. - Trigger multiple errors and verify readable order and no focus trap. Deliverables - Accessibility acceptance notes. Rollout and recovery: Include these checks in the release smoke path; revert inaccessible validation changes. Project prerequisites: Build a minimal local checkout fixture with synthetic prices, inventory, and a mock delivery provider. Engineer value: Practice risk analysis, exploratory testing, and evidence-based release decisions. Company value: Provide a reviewable release assessment tied to customer-impacting invariants. 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. #### BRELEASE-106 — Exercise partial provider failure without duplicating orders **Task · High priority · Advanced** noCV practice brief v5 · BRELEASE-106 · Risk-based release acceptance Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Exercise critical paths. Depends on: BRELEASE-103, BRELEASE-104. Difficulty: Advanced. Estimated focused work: 240 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Quality engineering 50% · Distributed systems 30% · Integrations 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. The delivery provider accepts a booking but the checkout request times out. Acceptance criteria - Represent booking outcome as pending when confirmation is unknown. - Retry using the same operation identity. - Prevent a second order from the same confirmed submission. Implementation constraints - Use a scripted provider double; send no external bookings. Verification - Recover a timed-out accepted booking. - Replay duplicate callbacks and verify one final order. Deliverables - Partial-failure acceptance suite. Rollout and recovery: Release behind a limited local cohort switch; stop new bookings if reconciliation is unhealthy. Project prerequisites: Build a minimal local checkout fixture with synthetic prices, inventory, and a mock delivery provider. Engineer value: Practice risk analysis, exploratory testing, and evidence-based release decisions. Company value: Provide a reviewable release assessment tied to customer-impacting invariants. 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. #### BRELEASE-107 — Run a structured exploratory session on edited addresses **Task · Medium priority · Advanced** noCV practice brief v5 · BRELEASE-107 · Risk-based release acceptance Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Exercise critical paths. Depends on: BRELEASE-105, BRELEASE-106. Difficulty: Advanced. Estimated focused work: 180 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Quality engineering 80% · Frontend 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. Automated cases miss interactions between edited addresses, browser back navigation, and refreshed quotes. Acceptance criteria - Define a charter and a fixed session duration. - Record observations, reproduction steps, and unresolved questions. - Turn a discovered stable regression into one focused test. Implementation constraints - Do not claim absence of defects from a time-boxed session. Verification - Explore address edits during pending quotes. - Verify an interrupted session leaves useful reproducible notes. Deliverables - Exploratory session report. Rollout and recovery: Use findings to update release risk; keep unknown behavior visible. Project prerequisites: Build a minimal local checkout fixture with synthetic prices, inventory, and a mock delivery provider. Engineer value: Practice risk analysis, exploratory testing, and evidence-based release decisions. Company value: Provide a reviewable release assessment tied to customer-impacting invariants. 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. ### Prepare release review Report uncertainty and make rollback conditions explicit. #### BRELEASE-108 — Assess a reduced regression suite against explicit omission risk **Task · High priority · Expert** noCV practice brief v5 · BRELEASE-108 · Risk-based release acceptance Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Prepare release review. Depends on: BRELEASE-101, BRELEASE-107. Difficulty: Expert. Estimated focused work: 300 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Quality engineering 100%. 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 has thirty minutes for the release gate and cannot run every browser combination. Acceptance criteria - Select checks using the documented change and impact map. - Compare runtime cost against omitted risk. - Identify conditions that require the broader suite before release. Implementation constraints - Declare device and browser coverage limits without inferring untested support. Verification - Show coverage for every critical invariant. - Introduce a high-impact uncovered path and force broader verification. Deliverables - Release gate selection record. Rollout and recovery: Use the reduced gate only within its declared scope; retain a broader fallback. Project prerequisites: Build a minimal local checkout fixture with synthetic prices, inventory, and a mock delivery provider. Engineer value: Practice risk analysis, exploratory testing, and evidence-based release decisions. Company value: Provide a reviewable release assessment tied to customer-impacting invariants. 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. #### BRELEASE-109 — Create a release evidence index with reproducible commands **Chore · Medium priority · Foundational** noCV practice brief v5 · BRELEASE-109 · Risk-based release acceptance Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Prepare release review. Depends on: BRELEASE-108. Difficulty: Foundational. Estimated focused work: 60 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Quality engineering 80% · Developer tooling 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. Reviewers cannot distinguish current results from screenshots copied from an earlier build. Acceptance criteria - Bind results to fixture and application revisions. - Link each risk to a check or explicit gap. - Include exact local commands and outcomes. Implementation constraints - Results are practice artifacts, not ownership claims. Verification - Reproduce one indexed result. - Detect a result whose revision differs from the release candidate. Deliverables - Release evidence index. Rollout and recovery: Regenerate the index after candidate changes; keep previous reports append-only. Project prerequisites: Build a minimal local checkout fixture with synthetic prices, inventory, and a mock delivery provider. Engineer value: Practice risk analysis, exploratory testing, and evidence-based release decisions. Company value: Provide a reviewable release assessment tied to customer-impacting invariants. 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. #### BRELEASE-110 — Rehearse rollback when delivery quotes become inconsistent **Task · High priority · Advanced** noCV practice brief v5 · BRELEASE-110 · Risk-based release acceptance Fictional engineering practice briefs. Starter repositories, fixtures, automated grading, and verified ownership are not included. Phase: Prepare release review. Depends on: BRELEASE-106, BRELEASE-109. Difficulty: Advanced. Estimated focused work: 210 minutes; setup and prerequisite tickets are additional. Estimated field mix: Quality engineering 40% · Platform engineering 30% · Database 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 rollback plan restores code but says nothing about orders already using the new delivery model. Acceptance criteria - Define a measurable stop condition for quote inconsistency. - Preserve completed orders and reconcile pending bookings. - Verify the old application can read retained order records. Implementation constraints - Do not delete accepted transactions to simplify recovery. Verification - Roll back after a synthetic completed and pending order. - Verify unsupported records trigger a reviewed repair path. Deliverables - Rollback rehearsal and data compatibility report. Rollout and recovery: Gate release on the rehearsal; prefer disabling new bookings while reconciling pending work. Project prerequisites: Build a minimal local checkout fixture with synthetic prices, inventory, and a mock delivery provider. Engineer value: Practice risk analysis, exploratory testing, and evidence-based release decisions. Company value: Provide a reviewable release assessment tied to customer-impacting invariants. 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.