Define dashboard quality rubric v1

Problem

There is no shared definition of what makes a dashboard template "good enough" to ship. Reviewers apply ad-hoc judgment — one person checks data accuracy, another focuses on layout, a third ignores both and approves on vibes. Without a formal quality rubric, review feedback is inconsistent, templates ship at varying quality levels, and design partners receive examples that may not represent the standard Dataface intends to set.

Context

• Review quality is inconsistent across quickstarts and examples because there is no shared rubric.
• Existing review workflows and design heuristics provide raw material, but not a normalized checklist.
• The rubric must be usable by humans first and later support automation or scoring.

Possible Solutions

• A - Keep review qualitative and rely on reviewer taste plus spot checks: flexible, but inconsistent and hard to teach.
• B - Create a very detailed scoring matrix that is too heavy for routine use: thorough, but likely impractical.
• C - Recommended: define a lightweight rubric with a few major dimensions, clear pass/fail language, and examples of strong versus weak dashboards.

Plan

1. Gather current review heuristics from factory, graph-library, and A Lie review work.
2. Group them into rubric dimensions such as correctness, clarity, composition, and polish.
3. Write rubric v1 with concrete examples and decision guidance for reviewers.
4. Pilot the rubric on a small dashboard set and revise ambiguous criteria.

Implementation Progress

• Confirm scope and acceptance with milestone owner.

• Milestone readiness signal is updated.

• Track blockers and mitigation owner.

Review Feedback

• [ ] Review cleared