Adoption hardening for internal teams

Problem

The graph library was validated with a single pilot team, but expanding to multiple internal teams and external design partners exposes new failure modes: different data shapes trigger edge cases in axis scaling, teams expect chart types or styling options that don't exist yet, and rendering performance degrades on larger datasets. Without hardening the chart type system, theming layer, and SVG rendering pipeline for this broader surface area, early design-partner experiences will be fragile — producing broken or inconsistent visuals that undermine trust before public launch.

Context

• Pilot work proved the baseline flow for visual language, chart defaults, interaction behavior, and differentiated styling, but repeated use by multiple internal teams and first design partners will surface reliability and UX edge cases that the pilot could work around manually.
• This milestone is about turning a promising path into something teams can use predictably without bespoke engineering help, support heroics, or undocumented workarounds.
• Expected touchpoints include dataface/core/render/chart/, chart design docs, examples, and visualization test coverage, plus any onboarding, validation, and issue-triage surfaces that repeatedly fail during broader adoption.

Possible Solutions

• A - Fix only the currently visible blockers: fast, but it tends to preserve hidden fragility and leaves the next round of adopters to rediscover the same classes of issues.
• B - Recommended: define an adoption-hardening checklist and close the highest-impact gaps: combine real usage review, targeted fixes, docs/runbook updates, and validation so repeated use becomes predictable.
• C - Pause broader adoption until a larger redesign is finished: reduces short-term support load, but delays the real feedback this milestone is meant to capture.

Plan

1. Review prototype/pilot outputs, open issues, and support friction to identify the top blockers to repeated team adoption of visual language, chart defaults, interaction behavior, and differentiated styling.
2. Turn those findings into a prioritized hardening scope that covers product behavior, docs/runbooks, and validation for the highest-risk flows.
3. Land or queue the highest-impact fixes and document explicit known limits for anything intentionally left out of scope.
4. Re-run representative multi-team or design-partner scenarios and update follow-up tasks based on what still fails or feels too brittle.

Implementation Progress

Review Feedback

• [ ] Review cleared