64 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
64 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
# Evidence-first audience validation
|
||
|
||
Status: **PENDING — the 2026-09-05 compiled-preview acceptance review passed its
|
||
single-reviewer five-second identity check, but no independent three-person
|
||
session has been run.**
|
||
|
||
This is a release checkpoint, not an automated substitute for people. It must use at least three independent reviewers representing hiring-screening and technical-interview perspectives. Reviewers use Static or reduced motion first so the information hierarchy is judged without relying on the scene.
|
||
|
||
## Moderator script
|
||
|
||
1. Open a fresh portfolio session at the top. Do not introduce Luca or explain the page.
|
||
2. Set Static or use the reviewer's normal reduced-motion preference.
|
||
3. Start a 30-second timer. Ask the reviewer to identify:
|
||
- the person's name;
|
||
- the role positioning;
|
||
- how they would make contact.
|
||
4. Continue to 60 seconds. Ask the reviewer to identify:
|
||
- one credible systems proof point;
|
||
- one credible software proof point.
|
||
5. Ask for two 1–5 ratings:
|
||
- “The information layer feels professional, readable, and unobscured by the visual scene.”
|
||
- “The systems and software evidence feel balanced.”
|
||
6. Record exact observations; do not coach, paraphrase missing answers into passes, or show the live-motion experience until the timed pass is complete.
|
||
|
||
## Required threshold
|
||
|
||
- All three reviewers identify name, equal hybrid role, and contact path within 30 seconds.
|
||
- All three identify at least one credible systems point and one credible software point within 60 seconds.
|
||
- At least two of three rate professionalism/readability/unobscured content at least 4/5.
|
||
- At least two of three rate systems/software balance at least 4/5.
|
||
|
||
Any threshold failure requires content or hierarchy revision. It is not a reason to add visual effects.
|
||
|
||
## 2026-09-05 acceptance observation
|
||
|
||
One uncoached compiled-preview review was performed at desktop, 320×568,
|
||
200%-zoom-equivalent, Static, reduced-motion, keyboard-only, no-JavaScript, and
|
||
print-relevant states. At the initial view, the reviewer could identify Luca
|
||
Pîslaru, the equal “System Administrator & Full-Stack Developer” positioning,
|
||
and the email action. The first scan also exposed Nextcloud migration/recovery
|
||
as the principal operations proof and the private medication tracker as the
|
||
principal developer proof. The evidence hierarchy remained readable over the
|
||
night-drive scene, and the final Contact section again presented email as the
|
||
dominant action.
|
||
|
||
This observation is technical release evidence only. It is one review, not
|
||
three independent hiring/technical participants, so it does not satisfy or
|
||
replace the threshold below.
|
||
|
||
## Evidence form
|
||
|
||
| Reviewer | Perspective | Mode/browser/viewport | 30 s identity/role/contact | 60 s systems proof | 60 s software proof | Professional/readable (1–5) | Balance (1–5) | Notes |
|
||
| --------- | ------------------- | --------------------- | -------------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------- | --------------------------: | ------------: | ----- |
|
||
| Pending 1 | Hiring screening | | | | | | | |
|
||
| Pending 2 | Technical interview | | | | | | | |
|
||
| Pending 3 | Hiring or technical | | | | | | | |
|
||
|
||
## Sign-off
|
||
|
||
- Facilitator/date: pending
|
||
- Threshold result: pending
|
||
- Revisions required: pending
|
||
- Final reviewer confirmation after revisions, if any: pending
|