# Evaluation: Base44 UI Delivery

**Date:** 2026-02-11
**Source:** coder-compose-base44 (Base44 platform)
**Evaluated against:** [UI-BRIEF](../UI-BRIEF.md)
**Related:** [Integration Roadmap](../plans/2026-02-11-integration-roadmap.md)

---

## Summary

The Base44 delivery is strong raw material. All 5 specified views are present, the data model matches the spec, and — critically — the persistence layer is cleanly abstracted behind a single SDK client. This means the biggest integration risk (tangled data access) is already mitigated.

---

## Gap Classification

### Structural Gaps (block everything, fix first)

| Gap | Impact | Notes |
|-----|--------|-------|
| Persistence tied to Base44 SDK | Cannot run independently | Clean seam exists at `src/api/base44Client.js` — swap, don't rewrite |
| Auth tied to Base44 | Cannot run independently | `src/lib/AuthContext.jsx` — replace or remove for Phase 1 |

### Functional Gaps (missing features, become work items)

| Gap | Spec Requirement | Delivered |
|-----|-----------------|-----------|
| Keyboard navigation | Comprehensive (arrow keys, `/` search, shortcuts) | Basic only (Enter, Escape) |
| Scope field | Editable file/directory patterns | Declared in model, not in UI |
| Tags field | Free-form tags | Declared in model, not in UI |
| Evidence field | Read-only list of commits/tests | Declared in model, not in UI |
| History/activity log | Who changed what, when | Not implemented |
| Group by | Project, label, status grouping | Not implemented |
| Saved filter presets | Reusable filter configurations | Not implemented |
| Dependency type | blocks, relates_to, informs | Only "blocks" implemented |
| Drag-to-reorder | Rearrange hierarchy via drag | Partially implemented |
| Circular dependency warning | Warn on circular deps | Not implemented |

### Expected Gaps (deliberately excluded from spec)

| Gap | Why Expected |
|-----|-------------|
| Policy entity not in code | Phase 2+ — schema only per spec |
| Session entity not in code | Phase 2+ — schema only per spec |
| No policy UI | Phase 3 |
| No session management | Phase 2 |
| No evidence collection | Phase 4 |

### Surplus (delivered but not requested)

| Feature | Assessment |
|---------|-----------|
| Stripe integration libraries | Strip — not needed |
| react-leaflet (mapping) | Strip — not needed |
| html2canvas/jspdf (PDF export) | Keep — could be useful for artifacts |
| recharts (charting) | Keep — useful for dashboard stats |
| framer-motion (animations) | Keep — but evaluate performance |

---

## Code Quality Notes

**Strengths:**
- Clean separation: pages, components/compose, components/ui, api, lib
- React Query for async state — proper caching and invalidation
- Single entry point for all data access (`base44Client.js`)
- Good component composition — small, focused components
- Dark theme well-implemented with CSS variables

**Weaknesses to address:**
- Hardcoded strings (statuses, types, colors) scattered — need constants
- No error boundaries or user-facing error feedback
- No tests
- Some large components (WorkDetailPanel.jsx) need splitting
- Query key strings hardcoded — need constants

---

## Verdict

Use as-is for UI layer. Replace persistence and auth. Functional gaps become work items after bootstrap step 2 (persistence swap).

---

## Compose Mapping

This evaluation was done manually. In Compose, this maps to:

- **Work item** with acceptance criteria drawn from the spec
- **Evidence** attached showing what was delivered
- **Child work items** generated from each gap row above
- **Status transition**: `review` → decisions on each gap → child items created as `planned`

The gap classification categories (structural, functional, expected, surplus) should be a standard pattern Compose supports for any delivery evaluation. See [Delivery Intake Process](../process/delivery-intake.md).
