# Retroactive Review Plan

Components built before the workflow upgrade (2026-03-27) haven't been through
the full quality gate lifecycle. This plan reviews them using a lighter process
focused on catching real issues, not re-polishing what already works.

## Approach

Use the condensed review process from component-lifecycle.md:
1. `/normalize {tier}` — Scan the tier for cross-component consistency
2. `/audit {component}` — Score each component (only those scoring < 16/20 need fixes)
3. Fix P0/P1 issues only
4. `/preflight` → commit

## Priority Order

Review bottom-up: atoms first (they're the foundation everything builds on),
then molecules, then organisms. Within each tier, prioritise by usage —
components used by many others matter more than standalone ones.

---

## Phase 1: Atoms (foundation layer — highest priority)

### Step 1.1 — Normalize all atoms
Run `/normalize atoms` once to get a cross-component consistency report.
Expected findings: token access patterns (D031), transition timing, focus
styles. Fix all issues in a single batch commit.

### Step 1.2 — Audit each atom
Run `/audit` on each atom. Components already audited in previous sessions have
scores on record. Focus on those that scored < 16/20 or were never audited.

| Atom | Last Audit Score | Priority |
|------|-----------------|----------|
| Button | — (not formally audited) | High (most-used atom) |
| Typography | — | Medium (display-only) |
| Input | — | High (forms foundation) |
| Card | — | High (used by all cards) |
| Badge | — | Medium (fixed in D031) |
| Chip | — | Low (minimal wrapper) |
| Switch | — | Low (minimal wrapper) |
| Radio | — | Low (minimal wrapper) |
| IconButton | — | Low (minimal wrapper) |
| Divider | — | Low (minimal wrapper) |
| Link | — | Low (minimal wrapper) |

**Estimated effort:** 1 session for normalize + audit of high/medium priority atoms.

---

## Phase 2: Molecules (composition layer)

### Step 2.1 — Normalize all molecules
Run `/normalize molecules` for cross-component consistency.

### Step 2.2 — Audit + critique priority molecules
Run `/audit` and `/critique` on molecules with real layout complexity.

| Molecule | Last Scores | Priority |
|----------|------------|----------|
| ProviderCard | Critique 33/40 (v2 iteration) | Medium (user-approved) |
| VenueCard | Critique 33/40 | Medium (user-approved) |
| SearchBar | Critique 35/40 | Low (high scores already) |
| ServiceOption | — | Medium (used by ServiceSelector) |
| AddOnOption | — | Medium (similar pattern to ServiceOption) |
| StepIndicator | — | Low (display-only) |
| LineItem | Audit 19/20 | Low (excellent score) |
| ProviderCardCompact | — | Medium (newer, less reviewed) |

**Estimated effort:** 1 session for normalize + audit of medium priority molecules.

---

## Phase 3: Organisms (page-level compositions)

### Step 3.1 — Normalize all organisms
Run `/normalize organisms` for cross-component consistency.

### Step 3.2 — Full review of critical organisms
Organisms are the most complex and user-facing. Run `/audit` + `/critique` +
`/harden` on each.

| Organism | Last Scores | Priority |
|----------|------------|----------|
| Navigation | — | High (site-wide, visible on every page) |
| Footer | Critique 38/40 | Low (excellent score) |
| ServiceSelector | — | High (arrangement flow core) |
| PackageDetail | Audit 19/20 | Low (excellent score) |
| FuneralFinder V1 | Audit 14/20, Critique 29/40 | Medium (pending production decision) |
| FuneralFinder V2 | Audit 18/20, Critique 33/40 | Medium (pending production decision) |
| FuneralFinder V3 | Audit 18/20, Critique 33/40 | Medium (pending production decision) |

**Note on FuneralFinder:** All three versions exist. A production decision (v1 vs v2 vs v3)
is still pending. Only review the chosen version in depth. The others can be archived or
retained as alternatives.

**Estimated effort:** 1 session for normalize + audit/critique of Navigation + ServiceSelector.

---

## Phase 4: Cross-cutting concerns

After individual components are clean:
1. Run `/adapt` on all organisms + ProviderCard/VenueCard (responsive check)
2. Run `/typeset` across a representative sample of each tier
3. Run `/preflight` to verify the full codebase
4. Commit all fixes

**Estimated effort:** 0.5 session.

---

## Total estimated effort: ~3.5 sessions

| Phase | Focus | Effort |
|-------|-------|--------|
| 1 | Atoms normalize + audit | 1 session |
| 2 | Molecules normalize + audit | 1 session |
| 3 | Organisms normalize + audit/critique/harden | 1 session |
| 4 | Cross-cutting (adapt, typeset, preflight) | 0.5 session |

This can be interleaved with new component work — e.g., review atoms in the
morning, build a new molecule in the afternoon. The review findings often
improve the patterns used in new components.

---

## Decision needed from user

Before starting, confirm:
1. **FuneralFinder version** — Which version (v1/v2/v3) should get the full
   review? The others can be lightly maintained or archived.
2. **Depth vs speed** — Do we fix all P2 issues too, or strictly P0/P1 only?
   P0/P1 only is faster and doesn't risk changing things that already work.
3. **Interleave with new work** — Review in dedicated sessions, or mix with
   building remaining components (FormField, ArrangementForm, PricingTable)?