---
title: "Iterate Refinement Notes: Workbench Blueprints"
description: "Workbench enterprise collaboration platform: Blueprints v1.1 backlog refinement session."
artifact: refinement-notes
version: "1.0"
repo_version: "2.5.0"
skill_version: "2.0.0"
created: 2026-02-20
status: sample
thread: workbench
context: "Workbench enterprise collaboration platform: Blueprints v1.1 backlog refinement session"
---
<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->

## Scenario

Following the customer segment pivot decision (May 19, 2026), Rachel V. facilitates the first v1.1 backlog refinement session with the Blueprints team. The session focuses on six stories that implement the three highest-priority items: the approval UX fix (from the retrospective), audit trail export (from the pivot decision and compliance pipeline), and the configurable wizard threshold (from enterprise customer feedback). The team needs to break these into estimable stories, identify dependencies, and resolve open questions before sprint planning.

This is the first refinement session after the pivot decision, so the team is also adjusting to the narrowed roadmap focus. Rachel V. opens the session by reaffirming that the pivot is a sequencing decision and that engineering-team features remain on the v2 roadmap.

### Source Notes

- Backlog refinement facilitation patterns: Mike Cohn, "Agile Estimating and Planning," Prentice Hall, 2005
- Story splitting techniques: Richard Lawrence, "Patterns for Splitting User Stories," agileforall.com
- INVEST criteria for well-formed stories: Bill Wake, "INVEST in Good Stories, and SMART Tasks," xp123.com, 2003

## Prompt

```
iterate-refinement-notes

I just ran the v1.1 refinement session. Here are the details:

**Session info:**
- Date: May 26, 2026
- Duration: 60 minutes
- Attendees: Rachel V. (PM, facilitator), Karen L. (Eng Lead), Tomás G. (Design), Nate P. (Backend), Aisha K. (Frontend), Leo M. (Data)

**Stories refined (6):**

1. BLUE-201: Approval action bar redesign -- promote Reject and Request Changes to primary visibility
   - Points: 3 (was 2 from retro; increased after discussion of animation transitions)
   - Ready for sprint

2. BLUE-202: Audit trail export (CSV) -- compliance officer can export all Blueprint lifecycle events for a date range
   - Points: 8
   - Ready for sprint
   - Note: Nate P. flagged that the current audit log stores events in an append-only format optimized for writes, not reads. The export query will need a read-optimized view or materialized table.

3. BLUE-203: Audit trail export (PDF) -- formatted PDF export for regulatory submissions
   - Points: 5
   - Blocked -- depends on BLUE-202 (CSV export provides the data layer); also needs legal review of the PDF format for FDA/SOX compliance

4. BLUE-204: Configurable wizard threshold -- template admins can set the section count at which the wizard auto-disables (default: 12)
   - Points: 2
   - Ready for sprint

5. BLUE-205: Approver-visible completeness score -- display per-section quality indicators in the approval review view
   - Points: 8
   - Ready for sprint (design review scheduled for May 28)
   - Note: Tomás G. proposed a progress bar showing "% sections with 20+ words" plus yellow warning badges on sections below threshold. Karen L. asked whether the threshold should be configurable -- team decided to hardcode 20 words for v1.1 and make it configurable in v1.2 if needed.

6. BLUE-206: Compliance officer role -- new RBAC role with template-lock and audit-export permissions
   - Points: 13
   - Blocked -- depends on BLUE-202 (audit export) for the export permission; also needs Karen L. to design the RBAC extension architecture

**Questions raised:**
- Should the audit trail export include section-level edit history or just lifecycle events? (Decision: lifecycle events only for v1.1; section-level history deferred to version history feature)
- Should the completeness score be visible to authors during editing, or only to approvers? (Decision: approvers only for now; author-visible is a future consideration)
- What happens to in-flight Blueprints when a compliance officer locks a template? (Parked for BLUE-206 design)

**Decisions made:**
- Wizard threshold default stays at 12 (consistency with v1) but is now admin-configurable
- Completeness word-count threshold is hardcoded at 20 words for v1.1
- Audit trail export scope is lifecycle events only (not section edit history)

Please generate the full refinement notes.
```


## Output

# Refinement Notes: May 26, 2026

## Session Info

| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Date | May 26, 2026 |
| Duration | 60 minutes |
| Sprint | Blueprints v1.1 Sprint 1 |
| Facilitator | Rachel V. |

### Attendees

| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| Rachel V. | Technical PM (Facilitator) |
| Karen L. | Engineering Lead |
| Tomás G. | Design Lead |
| Nate P. | Backend Engineer |
| Aisha K. | Frontend Engineer |
| Leo M. | Data Analyst |

## Summary

Six stories were refined for the Blueprints v1.1 Sprint 1 backlog. Four stories are ready for sprint planning (BLUE-201, BLUE-202, BLUE-204, BLUE-205), totaling 21 story points. Two stories are blocked (BLUE-203, BLUE-206) pending dependencies and design decisions, totaling 18 story points. Key decisions: audit trail export covers lifecycle events only (not section edit history), completeness score threshold is hardcoded at 20 words, and wizard threshold default remains 12 but becomes admin-configurable. The session also marked the team's first planning activity under the narrowed compliance-focused roadmap.

## Stories Refined

### BLUE-201: Approval Action Bar Redesign

**Story:** As a Blueprint approver, I want the Reject and Request Changes buttons to be equally visible alongside the Approve button, so that I can quickly take any review action without searching for secondary menus.

| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Points | 3 (increased from 2) |
| Status | Ready for sprint |
| Owner | Aisha K. (frontend) / Tomás G. (design) |
| Priority | P1 |

**Discussion:** The original estimate of 2 points assumed a simple button reorder. During refinement, Tomás G. presented a mockup with the three buttons in a horizontal row with equal sizing and distinct colors (green for Approve, red for Reject, amber for Request Changes). Aisha K. identified that the current floating action bar uses a CSS animation for expansion that needs to be adjusted for three equally-sized buttons. The team agreed to increase the estimate to 3 points to account for the animation work and cross-browser testing. This story directly addresses the 23 support tickets from launch week [fictional] and is the highest-priority item in the sprint.

**Acceptance criteria confirmed:**
- All three action buttons (Approve, Reject, Request Changes) are visible simultaneously in the floating action bar
- No secondary menu or dropdown required to access Reject or Request Changes
- Buttons use distinct colors matching the Workbench design system (green, red, amber)
- Floating bar remains pinned to the bottom of the viewport during scrolling
- Cross-browser tested: Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari

---

### BLUE-202: Audit Trail Export (CSV)

**Story:** As a compliance officer, I want to export all Blueprint lifecycle events for a specified date range as a CSV file, so that I can provide audit evidence for regulatory submissions.

| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Points | 8 |
| Status | Ready for sprint |
| Owner | Nate P. (backend) / Leo M. (data) |
| Priority | P1 |

**Discussion:** Nate P. raised a significant technical consideration: the current audit log is stored in an append-only event store optimized for high-throughput writes. The export query (filtering by date range across potentially millions of events) would be slow against this store. He proposed creating a read-optimized materialized view that refreshes every 15 minutes, which adds 3 points of backend work but makes the export performant and scalable. Leo M. confirmed that the materialized view can reuse the same event schema defined in the instrumentation spec, reducing the design effort.

Leo M. confirmed that the export should include the same event properties defined in the instrumentation spec: event name, timestamp, actor (user_id), blueprint_id, template_id, and event-specific metadata. No PII (user names, emails, section content) should appear in the export. This story is also a prerequisite for two blocked stories (BLUE-203 and BLUE-206), making it the critical-path item in the sprint.

**Acceptance criteria confirmed:**
- Compliance officer can select a date range and download a CSV of all Blueprint lifecycle events within that range
- CSV columns: event_timestamp, event_name, actor_user_id, blueprint_id, template_id, and event-specific properties
- Export excludes PII (no user names, emails, or section content)
- Export completes within 30 seconds for up to 100,000 events [fictional]
- Export is accessible only to users with the compliance officer or organization admin role
- Materialized view refreshes every 15 minutes; export page displays "Data current as of [timestamp]"

---

### BLUE-203: Audit Trail Export (PDF)

**Story:** As a compliance officer preparing a regulatory submission, I want to export the audit trail as a formatted PDF with headers, timestamps, and a chain-of-custody summary, so that I can attach it directly to FDA or SOX filings.

| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Points | 5 |
| Status | Blocked |
| Owner | Nate P. (backend) / Tomás G. (design) |
| Priority | P2 |

**Discussion:** The PDF export depends on BLUE-202 (CSV export) for the underlying data query layer. Additionally, the PDF format for regulatory submissions needs legal review because FDA 21 CFR Part 11 and SOX Section 404 have specific requirements for electronic records, including digital signatures and tamper-evidence. Rachel V. will schedule a legal review for the PDF template before this story can be unblocked. Mei-Lin T. confirmed that two of the six stalled pipeline deals specifically require the PDF export format, making this story the highest-priority blocked item.

**Blocker details:**
1. BLUE-202 must be complete (provides the data query infrastructure)
2. Legal review of PDF format for FDA/SOX compliance (Rachel V. to schedule by Jun 2)

---

### BLUE-204: Configurable Wizard Threshold

**Story:** As a template admin, I want to configure the section count at which the guided wizard auto-disables for my template, so that I can enable the wizard for complex templates that exceed the current 12-section limit.

| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Points | 2 |
| Status | Ready for sprint |
| Owner | Aisha K. (frontend) |
| Priority | P2 |

**Discussion:** The team confirmed that the default threshold stays at 12 sections (consistent with v1 behavior). The new setting is exposed in the template admin interface as a numeric input with a range of 5 to 30 [fictional]. Templates with section counts above the configured threshold show the canvas view only; templates at or below the threshold offer the wizard to first-time authors.

Aisha K. noted that this is a straightforward frontend change since the wizard-disable logic already checks a threshold value; it just needs to read from the template configuration instead of a hardcoded constant. The 2-point estimate reflects the simplicity of the change. This addresses the 8 enterprise customers who reported the issue during launch week.

**Acceptance criteria confirmed:**
- Template admin interface includes a "Wizard section limit" field (numeric, range 5-30 [fictional], default 12)
- Templates with section counts above the configured limit show canvas only
- Templates at or below the limit offer the wizard to first-time authors (existing behavior)
- Changing the threshold on an existing template takes effect for new Blueprints only (in-flight Blueprints are not affected)

---

### BLUE-205: Approver-Visible Completeness Score

**Story:** As a Blueprint approver, I want to see a per-section completeness indicator in the review view that flags sections with minimal content, so that I can quickly identify potential placeholder text without reading every section in full.

| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Points | 8 |
| Status | Ready for sprint (design review May 28) |
| Owner | Tomás G. (design) / Aisha K. (frontend) / Leo M. (data) |
| Priority | P1 |

**Discussion:** This story directly addresses the lessons-log finding (LL-007) that 4% of submitted Blueprints contain placeholder text in required sections [fictional]. Tomás G. proposed the following design:

- A progress bar at the top of the approval review view showing "X of Y sections have 20+ words"
- Yellow warning badges on individual sections with fewer than 20 words
- A tooltip on the badge: "This section has [N] words. Review for completeness."

Karen L. asked whether the 20-word threshold should be configurable by template admins. The team discussed and decided to hardcode 20 words for v1.1 to ship faster. If the threshold proves too high or too low for specific template types, configurability can be added in v1.2. Rachel V. noted that the A/B test data showed a median section word count of 142 words [fictional], making 20 words a conservative threshold that should flag only genuinely low-quality sections.

Leo M. confirmed that the word-count data is already available from the `section_completed` event's `word_count` property. The completeness score can be computed client-side from the Yjs document state without an additional API call.

**Acceptance criteria confirmed:**
- Approval review view displays a progress bar: "X of Y sections have 20+ words"
- Sections with fewer than 20 words display a yellow warning badge with word count
- Badge tooltip reads: "This section has [N] words. Review for completeness."
- Completeness score is visible only to approvers (not to authors during editing)
- Word count is computed client-side from the Yjs document state (no additional API call)
- Threshold is 20 words (hardcoded for v1.1)

---

### BLUE-206: Compliance Officer Role

**Story:** As an organization admin, I want to assign a compliance officer role that grants template-lock and audit-export permissions, so that our compliance team can manage documentation governance without needing full admin access.

| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Points | 13 |
| Status | Blocked |
| Owner | Nate P. (backend) / Karen L. (architecture) |
| Priority | P1 |

**Discussion:** This is the largest story in the v1.1 backlog and the most architecturally significant. The compliance officer role needs three permissions: (1) lock a template so that no further edits can be made to the template structure, (2) export the audit trail (depends on BLUE-202), and (3) view all Blueprints across the organization regardless of department-level access controls.

Karen L. emphasized that this role must be implemented as an extension of the existing RBAC system (adding a new role with specific permissions), not as a parallel permission layer. This preserves the horizontal architecture for v2 when additional roles may be needed for engineering teams. She estimated that the RBAC extension design will take one week, and the implementation will follow established patterns from the existing admin and template_admin roles.

**Blocker details:**
1. BLUE-202 must be complete (provides the audit export feature that the role needs permission to access)
2. Karen L. needs to complete the RBAC extension architecture design (target: Jun 2)

**Acceptance criteria (draft, pending architecture review):**
- Organization admin can assign the "Compliance Officer" role to any user
- Compliance officers can lock a template (preventing structural edits to sections, required/optional settings, and approval chains)
- Compliance officers can export the audit trail (CSV and PDF when available)
- Compliance officers can view all Blueprints organization-wide regardless of department access
- Compliance officers cannot create or edit Blueprints (separation of duties)
- Role is implemented within the existing RBAC framework (no parallel permission system)

## Stories Summary Table

| Story ID | Title | Points | Status | Owner | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLUE-201 | Approval action bar redesign | 3 | Ready | Aisha K. / Tomás G. | P1 |
| BLUE-202 | Audit trail export (CSV) | 8 | Ready | Nate P. / Leo M. | P1 |
| BLUE-203 | Audit trail export (PDF) | 5 | Blocked | Nate P. / Tomás G. | P2 |
| BLUE-204 | Configurable wizard threshold | 2 | Ready | Aisha K. | P2 |
| BLUE-205 | Approver-visible completeness score | 8 | Ready | Tomás G. / Aisha K. / Leo M. | P1 |
| BLUE-206 | Compliance officer role | 13 | Blocked | Nate P. / Karen L. | P1 |
| **Total** | | **39** | **4 ready (21 pts) / 2 blocked (18 pts)** | | |

## Questions Raised

### Question Details

| ID | Question | Raised by | Answer | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q-01 | Should the audit trail export include section-level edit history or just lifecycle events? | Leo M. | Lifecycle events only for v1.1; section-level history deferred to version history feature | Resolved |
| Q-02 | Should the completeness score be visible to authors during editing, or only to approvers? | Karen L. | Approvers only for v1.1; author visibility is a future consideration | Resolved |
| Q-03 | What happens to in-flight Blueprints when a compliance officer locks a template? | Nate P. | Parked: needs architectural decision as part of BLUE-206 design | Parked |

## Decisions Made

| Decision | Context | Participants |
|---|---|---|
| Audit trail export covers lifecycle events only (not section edit history) | Section edit history requires integration with the version history feature, which is not yet built | Leo M., Rachel V., Karen L. |
| Completeness score word-count threshold hardcoded at 20 words | Shipping speed over configurability; revisit in v1.2 if 20 words proves too high or low | Tomás G., Karen L., Rachel V. |
| Wizard threshold default remains 12 sections | Consistency with v1 behavior; now configurable by template admins (range 5-30) | Aisha K., Rachel V. |
| BLUE-201 estimate increased from 2 to 3 points | Animation transition work and cross-browser testing for the redesigned action bar | Aisha K., Tomás G. |

## Action Items

| Action | Owner | Due date |
|---|---|---|
| Schedule legal review for PDF export format (FDA/SOX compliance) | Rachel V. | Jun 2, 2026 |
| Complete RBAC extension architecture design for compliance officer role | Karen L. | Jun 2, 2026 |
| Finalize completeness score design mockups for design review | Tomás G. | May 28, 2026 |
| Create read-optimized materialized view for audit log export | Nate P. | Sprint 1 (start Jun 2) |

## Blocked Stories

| Story | Blocker | Owner | ETA to unblock |
|---|---|---|---|
| BLUE-203 (Audit trail PDF) | BLUE-202 must complete; legal review pending | Rachel V. (legal), Nate P. (BLUE-202) | Jun 16, 2026 |
| BLUE-206 (Compliance officer role) | BLUE-202 must complete; RBAC architecture design pending | Karen L. (architecture), Nate P. (BLUE-202) | Jun 16, 2026 |

## Parking Lot

- **Template locking and in-flight Blueprints (Q-03):** When a compliance officer locks a template, what happens to Blueprints that are currently in draft or in the approval queue? Options: (a) in-flight Blueprints continue with their snapshot of the template, (b) in-flight Blueprints are frozen and cannot be edited until the lock is released. This needs an architectural decision from Karen L. as part of the BLUE-206 design.
- **Completeness score for optional sections:** Should optional sections also show word-count indicators, or only required sections? Deferred to v1.2 refinement.
- **Audit trail retention configurability:** Some regulated industries require longer than the default 24-month retention. Should retention be configurable per account? Deferred to v1.2.

## Next Session

| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Date | Jun 2, 2026 |
| Focus | Sprint 1 planning; resolve BLUE-203 and BLUE-206 blockers if architecture and legal reviews are complete |
| Facilitator | Rachel V. |
| Pre-work | Karen L.: RBAC architecture doc. Tomás G.: completeness score design mockups. Rachel V.: legal review scheduled. |
