Quality¶

This section explains how bijux-canon-runtime earns trust: which proof surfaces matter, which risks stay visible, and what done should mean after a real change.

These pages explain the proof story for bijux-canon-runtime. They should make trust, skepticism, and review pressure visible enough that passing checks do not get mistaken for sufficient evidence.

Treat the quality pages for bijux-canon-runtime as the proof frame around the package. They should show how trust is earned and where skepticism still belongs.

Visual Summary¶

flowchart TB
    page["Quality<br/>clarifies: see proof | see limitations | judge done-ness"]
    classDef page fill:#dbeafe,stroke:#1d4ed8,color:#1e3a8a,stroke-width:2px;
    classDef positive fill:#dcfce7,stroke:#16a34a,color:#14532d;
    classDef caution fill:#fee2e2,stroke:#dc2626,color:#7f1d1d;
    classDef anchor fill:#ede9fe,stroke:#7c3aed,color:#4c1d95;
    classDef action fill:#fef3c7,stroke:#d97706,color:#7c2d12;
    proof1["tests/unit for api, contracts, core, interfaces, model, and runtime"]
    proof1 --> page
    proof2["tests/e2e for governed flow behavior"]
    proof2 --> page
    proof3["tests/regression and tests/smoke for replay and storage protection"]
    proof3 --> page
    risk1["CHANGELOG.md"]
    risk1 -.keeps trust honest.-> page
    risk2["pyproject.toml"]
    risk2 -.keeps trust honest.-> page
    risk3["README.md"]
    risk3 -.keeps trust honest.-> page
    bar1["package trust after change"]
    page --> bar1
    bar2["proof before confidence"]
    page --> bar2
    bar3["done means defended behavior"]
    page --> bar3
    class page page;
    class proof1,proof2,proof3 positive;
    class risk1,risk2,risk3 caution;
    class bar1,bar2,bar3 action;

Pages in This Section¶

Read Across the Package¶

Foundation when you need the package boundary and ownership story first
Architecture when the question becomes structural, modular, or execution-oriented
Interfaces when the question becomes caller-facing, schema-facing, or contract-facing
Operations when the question becomes procedural, environmental, diagnostic, or release-oriented

Concrete Anchors¶

tests/unit for api, contracts, core, interfaces, model, and runtime
tests/e2e for governed flow behavior
README.md

Use This Page When¶

you are reviewing tests, invariants, limitations, or ongoing risks
you need evidence that the documented contract is actually defended
you are deciding whether a change is truly done rather than merely implemented

Decision Rule¶

Use Quality to decide whether bijux-canon-runtime has actually earned trust after a change. If one narrow green check hides a wider contract, risk, or validation gap, the work is not done yet.

What This Page Answers¶

what currently proves the bijux-canon-runtime contract instead of merely describing it
which risks, limits, and assumptions still need explicit skepticism
what a reviewer should be able to say before accepting a change as done

Reviewer Lens¶

compare the documented proof story with the actual test layout and release posture
look for limitations or risks that should have moved with recent behavior changes
verify that the claimed done-ness standard still reflects real validation practice

Honesty Boundary¶

This page explains how bijux-canon-runtime is supposed to earn trust, but it does not claim that prose alone is enough. If the listed tests, checks, and review practice stop backing the story, the story has to change.

Next Checks¶

move to foundation when the risk appears to be boundary confusion rather than missing tests
move to architecture when the proof gap points to structural drift
move to interfaces or operations when the proof question is really about a contract or workflow

Purpose¶

This page explains how to use the quality section for bijux-canon-runtime without repeating the detail that belongs on the topic pages beneath it.

Stability¶

This page is part of the canonical package docs spine. Keep it aligned with the current package boundary and the topic pages in this section.