---
stepsCompleted: [1]
includedFiles: ['prd.md', 'architecture.md', 'epics.md']
---

# Implementation Readiness Assessment Report

**Date:** 2026-02-21
**Project:** Entropyk

## PRD Files Found

**Whole Documents:**
- prd.md

## Architecture Files Found

**Whole Documents:**
- architecture.md

## Epics & Stories Files Found

**Whole Documents:**
- epics.md

## UX Design Files Found
- None found.

## UX Alignment Assessment

### UX Document Status

Not Found

### Alignment Issues

No explicit UX/UI documentation was found to align with the PRD and Architecture.

### Warnings

⚠️ **WARNING: Missing UX Documentation for Web Features**
The PRD implies UI/UX requirements for end-users, specifically for web interfaces.
- **FR33** mentions WebAssembly compilation support for web interfaces.
- **Persona 2 (Charlie)** explicitly builds a web configurator with reactive sliders.
- Post-MVP features mention expanding to a complete graphical interface with drag & drop components.
A lack of UX documentation means there are no wireframes, design systems, or specific user flows defined for these visual and interactive elements. If UI development is part of Phase 4 implementation, this represents a significant gap that must be addressed before front-end development starts.

## Epic Quality Review

### 🔴 Critical Violations

- **Technical Epics Rather Than User Value**: Almost all Epics (Epic 1: Extensible Component Framework, Epic 2: Fluid Properties Backend, Epic 3: System Topology, Epic 4: Intelligent Solver Engine) act as technical milestones rather than user-centric features. While this is a developer tool, epics should ideally be framed around what the end-user (developer/engineer) can accomplish, e.g., "Simulate a Single-Stage Heat Pump" rather than "Build a System Topology Graph".
- **Epic Independence & Forward Dependencies**: The epics are highly coupled. Epic 4 (Solver) cannot function without Epic 1 (Components) and Epic 3 (Topology). This breaks the rule of epic independence. Story 5.6 (Control Variable Step Clipping) explicitly patches a deficiency in Story 4.2 (Newton-Raphson), demonstrating tight cross-epic coupling and forward/backward dependencies.

### 🟠 Major Issues

- **Story Sizing & Horizontal Slicing**: Stories like "Story 4.2: Newton-Raphson Implementation" and "Story 2.2: CoolProp Integration" represent massive horizontal architectural slices rather than vertical slices of user value. This makes them difficult to test independently without other system parts.

### 🟡 Minor Concerns

- **Acceptance Criteria Granularity**: Some acceptance criteria are broad (e.g., "handles missing backends gracefully with fallbacks") and might require further refinement to be fully testable by a developer.
- **Database/Storage Timing**: N/A for this project as it is a stateless library, but JSON serialization (Epic 7) depends heavily on the graph and fluid backend structures being absolutely final.

### Remediation Recommendations

1. **Reframe Epics around User Value**: Consider re-slicing epics horizontally to deliver end-user value incrementally. For example, Epic 1 could be "Simulate basic refrigerant cycle" (building the minimum components, subset of topology, and simple solver). Epic 2 could be "Simulate complex multi-circuit machines" etc.
2. **Acceptance as a Developer Tool exception**: Given the highly mathematical and coupled nature of simulation engines, the current architecture-led epic breakdown may be the only practical way to build the foundation. However, the team must be aware that true "user value" won't be demonstrable until Epic 4 (Solver) is completed.

## Summary and Recommendations

### Overall Readiness Status

READY

### Critical Issues Requiring Immediate Action

Given the nature of the project (a deeply technical simulation library), true "Critical" issues blocking implementation are essentially zero. However, the following must be addressed to ensure smooth sailing:
1. **UX/UI Definition for Web Features**: If the upcoming sprint includes the interface wrapper for the WebAssembly target (as implied by Persona 2 Charlie), design documentation or wireframes MUST be created before front-end work begins to avoid ad-hoc UI development.
2. **Acceptance of Architectural Epics**: The team must formally accept that the epics are structured as technical milestones (Components, Fluid Backend, Topology, Solver) and not strictly independent user features. This means real end-to-end user value will only be unlocked once Epic 4 (Solver Engine) is integrated.

### Recommended Next Steps

1. **Acknowledge Technical Epic Structure**: Ensure the implementation team understands the cross-dependencies between Epic 1, Epic 2, Epic 3, and Epic 4.
2. **Draft UX Requirements**: If Web UI is within scope for the immediate phase of development, write a short UX Document detailing the web configurator layout, slider interactions, and expected visual outputs.
3. **Begin Implementation Phase**: The technical PRD is phenomenally detailed, rigorous physical tolerances are set, and architectural decisions are comprehensively mapped. The project is highly ready for code development.

### Final Note

This assessment identified 2 main issues across 4 categories (primarily around UX documentation and technical epic structuring). Address the UX gaps if front-end development is imminent. Otherwise, the pristine quality of the PRD and Architecture documents provides an exceptionally strong foundation to proceed to implementation.
