# Implementation Turn: quote lifecycle truth and execution explanation Status: open Opened: 2026-04-09 ## Goal Replace ambiguous quote and decision wording with a truthful per-quote lifecycle that tells the operator exactly why a quote was filtered, rejected, blocked, submitted, failed, not filled, or completed. ## Selected backlog items - [I021] Quote lifecycle truth and execution explanation: replace ambiguous dashboard verdicts with a per-quote state machine that shows exactly why a quote was filtered, rejected, blocked, submitted, not filled, or executed, with durable reason codes and operator-facing traceability. ## Design rules - Treat quote lifecycle as product truth, not UI decoration. - Strategy verdict is not the final operator answer. - Prefer one explicit lifecycle derivation path shared by backend and dashboard over ad hoc page-specific wording. - Do not invent downstream certainty where durable evidence is absent. - Remove `Actionable` completely from operator-facing copy. - Do not use stronger operator words than the durable evidence supports. - Fix semantic bugs by changing both the code and the tests that encoded the wrong assumption. ## Problem statement for this turn The current dashboard still forces operators to infer too much: - `Actionable` does not say whether a command was emitted or submitted - the Strategy page mixes strategy and execution truth - executor-rejected rows are not clearly distinguishable from strategy-rejected rows - quote ids are truncated and awkward to use during debugging The repo already stores enough of the real lifecycle to do better: - quote id - decision id - emitted command id - execution result status and result code The recent submission-versus-trade bug showed the broader prevention gap: - wrong semantics were encoded in backend query names - the dashboard rendered stronger claims than the evidence supported - tests asserted the wrong meaning instead of protecting the truth The turn therefore needs to improve: - lifecycle derivation - durable reason mapping - recent-row rendering - trace affordances ## Lifecycle model for this turn Implement one repo-owned lifecycle derivation for recent rows, using durable evidence in this order: 1. Quote observed 2. Strategy evaluated 3. Command emitted or not emitted 4. Executor result observed or absent 5. Venue downstream outcome when available The first mandatory states are: - `Filtered` - `Rejected` - `Blocked` - `Submitted` - `Failed` - `Awaiting outcome` - `Completed` These states must become the repo-owned evidence vocabulary for operator surfaces and summaries. Suggested meanings: - `Filtered` quote never entered the active trade path or was excluded before strategy decision - `Rejected` strategy evaluated the quote and decided not to trade - `Blocked` strategy approved or emitted a command, but execution did not proceed due to control state or another repo-owned gate - `Submitted` executor accepted the command and successfully submitted a quote response - `Failed` execution submission failed technically - `Awaiting outcome` submitted to venue, but no later durable terminal venue outcome exists yet - `Completed` durable evidence shows the trade completed successfully Do not show states we cannot support yet for a given row. ## Reason-code model For each lifecycle state, map durable payload fields to a small operator reason taxonomy. Examples: - strategy reason codes: - unsupported_pair - below_edge_threshold - inventory_unavailable - stale_reference_price - executor reason codes: - executor_disarmed - executor_paused - submission_failed - quote_response_ok - downstream outcome reasons if available: - expired - not_filled - completed If the exact reason is missing: - expose `reason_unknown` - keep the row truthful instead of synthesizing an explanation ## Semantic guardrails for this turn ### 1. Ban overloaded certainty words unless evidence justifies them Review and remove or rename operator-facing and backend terms such as: - `successfulTradeCount` - `lastSuccessfulTradeAt` - `loadSuccessfulTradesPage` - `trade_asset_changes` - any UI label implying trade completion, realized asset movement, or PnL attribution from mere submission evidence Allowed wording must be tied to the strongest durable evidence actually present. ### 2. Encode semantic invariants in code and tests Add explicit checks and regression coverage for: - `submitted != completed` - `submitted != realized asset delta` - executor blocking != strategy rejection - no UI label may claim trade completion from submission-only evidence Negative tests are required, not just positive-path tests. ## Backend changes ### 1. Add a lifecycle derivation helper Create or extend a backend module that derives quote lifecycle from: - recent trade decisions - recent execution results - later terminal records only where they are real - any available quote-status or venue result surfaces It should emit a normalized row object with: - `quote_id` - `decision_id` - `command_id` - `pair` - `direction` - `lifecycle_state` - `lifecycle_label` - `reason_code` - `reason_text` - timestamps for the latest known stage - stage details for tooltips or drilldown ### 2. Join decision and execution truth explicitly The backend should no longer leave the frontend to infer execution from isolated tables. For each recent quote/decision row: - attach the matching execution result by `command_id`, `decision_id`, or `quote_id` - attach terminal completion or non-fill evidence only where it is genuinely available - expose whether the row is strategy-only, strategy-plus-command, or strategy-plus-execution As part of this phase, rename misleading backend aggregation helpers and payload fields where practical so code meaning matches evidence meaning. ### 3. Preserve operator drilldown identifiers Ensure the bootstrap payload exposes: - full quote id - full decision id - full command id Avoid requiring the frontend to reconstruct or guess identifiers from formatted strings. ## Dashboard changes ### 4. Remove forbidden language Remove `Actionable` from: - Strategy page tables - any lifecycle badge or verdict cell - any supporting labels or legends Replace it with explicit state labels driven by lifecycle derivation. Also remove or rename any remaining wording that presents submission evidence as trade completion or realized asset movement. ### 5. Make recent rows self-explanatory For each row, render: - primary lifecycle state - secondary reason text - quote id with copy action - command id if emitted - timestamps The operator should be able to scan rows and answer: - why no trade happened - whether the system tried to trade - whether failure was strategic, operational, or downstream ### 6. Add trace affordances At minimum: - copy button for quote id - avoid over-truncating ids without recovery path - show linked ids in a dedicated trace column or expanded detail panel If the row layout gets crowded, prefer an expandable detail tray over hiding identifiers. ## Page-level application ### Strategy page This page should become the primary recent quote-decision-execution lifecycle surface. It should show: - the latest recent rows for the active pair - lifecycle state rather than strategy-only verdict - explicit explanation text If a strategy-only summary remains, it must be visually separate from per-quote lifecycle truth. ### Related quote surfaces Inspect quote and system surfaces for similar ambiguity and align the wording if they expose the same concepts. Do not let one page say `Submitted` while another page still says `Actionable` for the same row. Do not let one page say `trade` while another page only has `submitted` evidence for the same row. ## Data and state edge cases - Strategy decision exists, no command emitted: render as `Rejected` with strategy reason - Command emitted, no execution result yet: render as `Blocked` or `Awaiting executor` only if that distinction is durably supportable; otherwise use a truthful pending label - Execution result `executor_disarmed`: render as `Blocked` with reason `executor disarmed` - Execution result `submission_failed`: render as `Failed` - Execution result `submitted`: render as `Submitted` or `Awaiting outcome` - Successful trade summary exists but no explicit per-quote completion event: only promote to `Completed` where the durable linkage is real - Submission evidence appears in profitability or summary widgets: rename and constrain those widgets so they do not imply realized trade truth ## Concrete implementation order ### Phase 1. Define lifecycle derivation - inspect current durable decision and execution payloads - write the normalized lifecycle state mapping - define forbidden and allowed operator labels - list misleading backend and UI names that must be changed - define the semantic invariant tests up front ### Phase 2. Implement backend aggregation - derive unified recent lifecycle rows - expose full identifiers and reason codes - keep old consumers working until the frontend is switched - rename misleading submission-as-trade helpers and summary fields where touched ### Phase 3. Update Strategy page rendering - replace verdict column with lifecycle state - add reason text - add quote-id copy affordance - surface command id and execution state where relevant ### Phase 4. Tighten wording and consistency - remove `Actionable` - align supporting labels - ensure blocked vs rejected vs submitted are clearly distinct - ensure submitted vs completed vs realized asset movement are clearly distinct ### Phase 5. Validate with live recent rows - verify a row rejected due to executor disarmed renders as blocked with reason - verify a submitted row renders as submitted - verify quote ids can be copied and used for tracing - verify no submission-only row is rendered as a trade, completion, or realized asset delta ## Test plan - unit tests for lifecycle derivation from: - strategy-rejected rows - executor-disarmed rows - submission-failed rows - submitted rows - unit tests for semantic invariants: - submitted rows must not be counted as completed trades - submission-only rows must not render as asset deltas - dashboard bootstrap tests for: - forbidden `Actionable` removal - explicit lifecycle labels - reason text rendering - identifier exposure - dashboard summary tests for renamed or narrowed submission metrics - frontend component tests if needed for copy affordance or row rendering logic No lifecycle ambiguity fix is complete without a regression test proving the old ambiguous wording or overclaim cannot return. ## Validation checklist against the proof - `Actionable` no longer appears - strategy approval is visibly distinct from execution submission - recent blocked rows explain why they did not trade - recent submitted rows show that they were submitted - quote ids are directly usable from the dashboard - submission-only evidence is no longer rendered as trade completion or asset delta truth ## Failure modes to plan for - the backend joins rows incorrectly and attributes the wrong execution result - the UI uses softer wording than the backend lifecycle state - older rows lack enough evidence and the UI pretends certainty - ids are still truncated without a copy or expand path - misleading legacy names remain in place and create new semantic drift later ## Truth review checklist for this turn For every operator-facing label, metric, table, or badge touched in this proof: - what exact durable table or event backs it? - what is the strongest claim the evidence supports? - what wording would overclaim certainty? - what negative regression test locks that boundary in?