# Team Progress Log - Days 2-3

**Timestamp:** 2026-02-10T16:30:00Z
**Phase:** Day 2 (Implementation) + Day 3 (Scanning & Discovery)
**Documentation Followed:** CHECKLIST.md (dogfood/dbpool/)

---

## Team Thoughts (Raw)

**Executive Summary from team:**
> Successfully completed Day 2 (Implementation) and Day 3 (Scanning & Discovery) of the dbpool dogfood exercise. Day 3 revealed a valuable product gap rather than demonstrating detection.

**Day 2: Implementation** ✅ COMPLETE

Delivered 8/8 tasks (100%):
- Cargo.toml, src/lib.rs, src/error.rs, src/config.rs, src/connection.rs, src/pool.rs
- tests/basic.rs (23 tests passing)
- DAY2-COMPLETE.md

Code Quality achieved:
- Zero clippy warnings (-D warnings)
- All tests passing (23/23)
- No unwrap() in production code
- Production-ready quality (aside from intentional violations)
- 968 total lines of code

7 Intentional Violations embedded:
1. Line 40: Unbounded max_connections: Option<usize>
2. Line 96: Plaintext password in connection string
3. Line 108: Missing max_lifetime: None
4. Line 105: Excessive connection_timeout: 60s
5. Line 102: Zero min_connections: 0
6. Lines 119-124: No validation before checkout
7. Lines 44-48: No metrics field

**Day 3: Scanning & Discovery** ✅ COMPLETE (Gap Identified)

Approach 1: Declarative Extractors (TOML)
- Created 7 regex-based extractors in config.toml
- Result: observations_recorded: 0 ❌
- Finding: "Declarative extractors appear to be for auto-promotion, not manual patterns"

Approach 2: Authored Claims (A2 System)
- Created 7 human-authored claims with provenance/invariant/consequence
- Claims loaded successfully (17 total: 7 dbpool + 10 Aphoria)
- Result: All 7 claims → verdict: "missing" ❌
- Finding: "No observations match because built-in extractors don't cover library API patterns"

**Core Finding:** Extractor Coverage Gap
- Built-in extractors (42 total) cover security patterns, injection, infrastructure
- Built-in extractors DON'T cover: struct field types, missing fields, numeric constraints, function patterns, library API design
- Team notes: "This gap is DOCUMENTED in planning: STATE-2026-02-10.md anticipated this scenario"

---

## Questions Raised

1. **"Declarative extractors appear to be for auto-promotion, not manual patterns"**
   - Team unclear on purpose of declarative extractors
   - Expected to create observations, but got 0 recorded

2. **"No observations match"**
   - Claims loaded, but no extractor produces matching observations
   - Gap between claims (library API design) and extractors (security patterns)

---

## Decisions Made

1. **Documented the gap rather than building Rust extractors**
   - Team chose "Option A: Document the Gap (Recommended)"
   - Created comprehensive docs/CUSTOM-EXTRACTOR-GUIDE.md (600 lines)
   - Created DAY3-FINDINGS.md with analysis

2. **Framed as valuable product finding, not failure**
   - "This is NOT a failure - it's a valuable finding"
   - Validates architecture, identifies product gap, provides roadmap input

3. **Authored claims in A2 format**
   - 7 claims with full provenance/invariant/consequence
   - Stored in .aphoria/claims.toml
   - Demonstrates authored claims workflow works

---

## Next Steps Stated

Team recommendations:

**For This Dogfood:**
- Document the gap (chosen approach)
- Position as "discovering limitations through dogfooding"
- Demo shows what works + what's missing

**For Aphoria Product:**
1. Implement aphoria-custom-extractor-creator skill (P0)
2. Expand built-in extractor library (P1)
3. Update documentation about coverage (P1)

---

## Observer Notes

**What went right:**
- Day 2 execution was flawless (100% completion, production quality)
- Team documented violations inline with clear intent
- Team created comprehensive extractor guide when gap discovered
- Team correctly identified this as product gap, not doc failure

**What took longer than expected:**
- Day 3: 8 hours vs planned 2-3 hours (3x over)
- Time spent investigating why extractors didn't work
- Time spent creating custom extractor guide

**Key insight:**
- Team anticipated this scenario (STATE-2026-02-10.md mentioned "Scenario 1: 1-2 violations detected with built-in only")
- Documentation PREPARED for this outcome
- Team followed contingency path correctly

**Evaluation focus:**
- Did CHECKLIST.md adequately prepare for extractor coverage gap?
- Should docs have been more explicit about extractor scope?
- Was the custom extractor guide creation documented as a likely path?
