Write acceptance criteria for prioritized "Review filing" stories

[natalia-fitzgerald]

Make updates to “Review filing” story issues based on feedback from backlog refinement meeting and write first draft of acceptance criteria. Determine whether a task analysis is needed for this set of stories.

@dan-padgett
Putting this here as a placeholder. Feel free to modify in whatever way makes sense for your work.

@angelcardoz
Can you provide a list of the prioritized user stories that we will tackle in Q1 2025?

• Initial draft of acceptance criteria for each story
  • 307
  • 308
  • 309
  • 310
  • 311
  • 315
• Revise acceptance criteria for each story
  • 307
  • 308
  • 309
  • 310
  • 311
  • 315

[dan-padgett]

From Angel:
The following stories were moved to the "Refine user story" stage:

• [Story] Know about completed filing sbl-project#307)
• [Story] Easily access completed filing sbl-project#308)
• [Story] See summary of completed filing sbl-project#309)
• [Story] Print summary of completed filing sbl-project#310) (Not high priority)
• [Story] Know who to contact for assistance with completed filing sbl-project#311)
• [Story] Re-send filing confirmation email sbl-project#315) (Not high priority)

[dan-padgett]

Running list of discussion items:

• 307 hasn't had the story updated based on backlog refinement notes. Do we still want to make that update?
• Because of the re-scoping of 307 and 308, these two stories could be combined.
• 309 has a potentially contentious acceptance criteria that allows viewing the verified warnings. That is intentionally there to see what people think of the idea. And it is also meant to start a broader conversation around whether we show the stepper on the review page.
• With 310, whether there are one or two acceptance criteria depends on whether we are going with a separate page for reviewing a filing.
• The draft AC for 315 explore using the secondary action as a way to trigger re-sending the confirmation email. Whether we want to make this action available here is something to think about further.
• Also for 315, we should probably limit the re-sending to just the person who requests it. This is different from the initial confirmation email, which goes to the submitter and the POC.

[natalia-fitzgerald]

@dan-padgett

• Yes, 307 should be updated based on the backlog refinement notes. I updated.
  • But, based on my note below we will probably need to adjust further.
• If we decide to keep 307 and 308 we should make them more distinct.
  • 307 could be a story that speaks to a filer wanting to have confidence that they have fulfilled their filing obligation.
    • Could show up as the heading and body text on the card on filing home.
  • 308 could speak to a filer wanting to be able to easily review a filing that they've submitted during the current filing period.
    • Could show up as the primary action on the card on filing home.
• Once a filer has submitted, the sign and submit should already be read-only. Is there a reason that we wouldn't send them to the sign and submit page --- in the read-only confirmation state?
• If we use the existing sign and submit page (read-only confirmation state) which of the potential paths you've described still make sense? "they can (i) go back to filing home, (ii) view verified warnings, (iii) restart the submission process, or (iv) contact support with any questions."
  • In terms of viewing verified warnings they can always do this by clicking back through the process. Why do you specifically call it out here?

[natalia-fitzgerald]

@dan-padgett
Do you think we can move this to completed?