v1.0 stability and defect burn-down

Problem

After public launch, rendering defects will arrive from diverse real-world data shapes, viewport sizes, and chart configurations that internal testing could not fully anticipate. Without a structured stability program — recurring defect burn-down sprints, reliability trend tracking (e.g., rendering error rates per chart type, SVG generation failures), and severity-based prioritization — bugs will accumulate in an unmanaged backlog. The visual quality that differentiated Dataface at launch will erode over time as edge-case failures go unaddressed and users encounter inconsistent or broken chart output.

Context

• After launch, recurring defects in visual language, chart defaults, interaction behavior, and differentiated styling will damage trust faster than new features can restore it, so this phase should prioritize stability over new scope.
• The goal is to identify the repeat offenders, remove the highest support burden, and make failure patterns measurable enough that the team knows whether quality is improving.
• Expected touchpoints include dataface/core/render/chart/, chart design docs, examples, and visualization test coverage, bug history, support or incident notes, and any tests or QA gaps that let defects recur.

Possible Solutions

• A - Keep mixing bug fixes with feature work opportunistically: preserves flexibility, but lets long-tail reliability work stay perpetually unfinished.
• B - Recommended: run an explicit stability program: rank defect classes, burn down the highest-frequency issues, and pair fixes with validation so regressions stop recurring.
• C - Freeze all new work until zero known defects remain: simple in principle, but unrealistic and usually counterproductive.

Plan

1. Aggregate the recurring failures in visual language, chart defaults, interaction behavior, and differentiated styling from bugs, support notes, and recent releases, then rank them by user impact and repeat rate.
2. Turn the top defect classes into a concrete burn-down list with owners, acceptance criteria, and the validation needed to keep each fix from regressing.
3. Land or schedule the highest-leverage fixes first, including any docs or operator changes that reduce repeat incidents.
4. Review the remaining defect mix after the first burn-down pass and update the next tranche of work based on actual stability improvements.

Implementation Progress

Review Feedback

• [ ] Review cleared