FM §04 spec: cockpit type, density, chip and motion language
Context
Epic #14560 is titled "the design-led product surface" — and its sub-tree (29/30 closed) tracked the MECHANICS build-out while the design bar the epic is named for was never structured into tickets. Operator verdict 2026-08-16: "design and ux => a lot of love missing," confirmed by the FM lead's own layer assessment (mechanics ~70–75%, design ~25%). This ticket is the spec-first head of the §04 pass — the contract the implementation subs (and their reviews) score against, per the contract-first discipline that carried #17209 and #17130.
The Problem
The cockpit's visual language is engineer-assembled, not designed: three status-chip idioms built independently this month (per-agent telltale, spine banner, viewer-wake telltale) are consistent in honesty SEMANTICS but visually ad-hoc; typography and density were never laddered (rail tabs oversize, panels undersize — #17211's symptoms); iconography is default Font Awesome; motion is FLIP-only with no reveal/dismiss/pulse language. There is no single place a contributor can read what the cockpit is supposed to LOOK like — the design SSOT (the fleet-manager cockpit plan, §04) names the bar but the bar was never specified to implementable depth.
The Fix
One spec artifact (a §04 section extension of the cockpit-plan design SSOT + a token-contract appendix), covering four ladders:
- Type + density: the type scale (chrome vs pane-body vs detail), the density ladder (roster-20-cards vs drilled detail), spacing rhythm as tokens.
- The chip system: ONE designed family for telltale/banner/chip/state-dot — shared anatomy (mark + text + optional detail affordance), state-to-token mapping, the exception-only vs always-rendered classes as a stated rule, WCAG 1.4.1 discipline (never hue-alone) restated as a design law.
- Iconography: which glyphs are load-bearing, replacing defaults where they mislead.
- Motion language: FLIP (dock ops) + reveal/dismiss (rails/drawers) + pulse (liveness) unified — durations/easings as tokens, reduced-motion collapse stated per class.
Spec-first means: this ticket ships NO component changes — it ships the reviewable contract, each ladder with its acceptance sketch, so the implementation subs are scored against a stated bar.
Acceptance Criteria
Out of Scope
Implementation (the sibling subs own it) · the dashboard THEME layer (#17242/#17244 — tokens for the dock package are its concern; this spec consumes, not defines, theme tokens) · portal/app-wide design language beyond the cockpit.
Related
Epic #14560 (parent) · #17211 (ergonomics symptoms) · #17241 (dock visual language into the engine) · #17242 (theme layer foundation) · #14618 (visual-regression baseline — the evidence instrument for the whole pass) · #13158 (docking polish).
Live latest-open sweep: latest 20 open checked 2026-08-16T22:22Z, no equivalent; A2A herd-window sweep clean (active claims: D#17247 body work, #17143, #17260 — no overlap).
Origin Session ID: 71baabc5-3ebe-46ff-99ce-a301e78cb7c5
Retrieval Hint: query_raw_memories("FM section 04 design bar spec cockpit type density chip motion language")
FM §04 spec: cockpit type, density, chip and motion language
Context
Epic #14560 is titled "the design-led product surface" — and its sub-tree (29/30 closed) tracked the MECHANICS build-out while the design bar the epic is named for was never structured into tickets. Operator verdict 2026-08-16: "design and ux => a lot of love missing," confirmed by the FM lead's own layer assessment (mechanics ~70–75%, design ~25%). This ticket is the spec-first head of the §04 pass — the contract the implementation subs (and their reviews) score against, per the contract-first discipline that carried #17209 and #17130.
The Problem
The cockpit's visual language is engineer-assembled, not designed: three status-chip idioms built independently this month (per-agent telltale, spine banner, viewer-wake telltale) are consistent in honesty SEMANTICS but visually ad-hoc; typography and density were never laddered (rail tabs oversize, panels undersize — #17211's symptoms); iconography is default Font Awesome; motion is FLIP-only with no reveal/dismiss/pulse language. There is no single place a contributor can read what the cockpit is supposed to LOOK like — the design SSOT (the fleet-manager cockpit plan, §04) names the bar but the bar was never specified to implementable depth.
The Fix
One spec artifact (a §04 section extension of the cockpit-plan design SSOT + a token-contract appendix), covering four ladders:
Spec-first means: this ticket ships NO component changes — it ships the reviewable contract, each ladder with its acceptance sketch, so the implementation subs are scored against a stated bar.
Acceptance Criteria
Out of Scope
Implementation (the sibling subs own it) · the dashboard THEME layer (#17242/#17244 — tokens for the dock package are its concern; this spec consumes, not defines, theme tokens) · portal/app-wide design language beyond the cockpit.
Related
Epic #14560 (parent) · #17211 (ergonomics symptoms) · #17241 (dock visual language into the engine) · #17242 (theme layer foundation) · #14618 (visual-regression baseline — the evidence instrument for the whole pass) · #13158 (docking polish).
Live latest-open sweep: latest 20 open checked 2026-08-16T22:22Z, no equivalent; A2A herd-window sweep clean (active claims: D#17247 body work, #17143, #17260 — no overlap).
Origin Session ID: 71baabc5-3ebe-46ff-99ce-a301e78cb7c5
Retrieval Hint:
query_raw_memories("FM section 04 design bar spec cockpit type density chip motion language")