research: media-library - Evaluate media storage and publishing workflows #280

Research Goal

Compare media-library options using representative recovered Figma assets and the TOA website and book publishing requirements.

Code Review Summary

This is a storage and publishing workflow evaluation, not a code-review issue. test: scripts - Expand test coverage and add media-library audit supplies related audit documents and separate test changes; merging it would not demonstrate completion of this research.

Linked Stories/Tasks/PRs/Epic

• Parent: epic: media-library - Define asset recovery and library strategy #267.
• Asset recovery: bug: assets - Restore original Figma artwork #7.
• Related contribution: test: scripts - Expand test coverage and add media-library audit, not a closing implementation PR.

Milestones & Timeline

Not set. Representative recovery findings are required before finalising the evaluation. Dates or estimates in draft reports are not confirmed commitments.

Background / Motivation

The media library must accommodate website delivery and book publishing while distinguishing originals from derivatives.

Evaluate the GitHub + Netlify planning baseline without treating implementation approval as granted. Assess print suitability and record gaps now; print-ready delivery is deferred.

Approach / Methods

Evaluate:

• Visual upload, tagging, search and catalogue maintenance.
• Preservation of originals and management of website derivatives.
• Website delivery and book-export suitability using representative recovered assets.
• Provider costs, quotas, capacity, operational constraints and migration implications.

Record evidence, trade-offs and unresolved assumptions. Do not purchase services, upload assets or initiate migration under this research issue.

Findings / Summary

Current status — 19 October 2026

In Progress. Provider comparisons and an evaluation framework exist. GitHub + Netlify remains a planning assumption—not verified zero-cost hosting, a completed provider trial or implementation approval.

As checked on 17 October 2026:

• PR #296’s audit reports provide an inventory, catalogue, strategy, provider comparison, decision log and recovery-pilot plan.
• Representative recovery, recovered-sample evaluation, print readiness and provider costs are not yet established by the reviewed evidence.
• Open PR review threads question inventory/category consistency, sample identifiers, pilot thresholds and provider assumptions.
• Documents being present does not establish that their findings are validated or that research acceptance criteria are satisfied.

Next Steps

1. Reconcile audit totals, identifiers, pilot criteria and provider recommendations.
2. Obtain representative recovery evidence and evaluate website and book workflows.
3. Record an evidence-backed recommendation, confirmed decision status, trade-offs and remaining questions.

Acceptance Criteria

• Representative recovered assets are identified, with source and suitability recorded.
• Visual upload, tagging, search and catalogue maintenance are evaluated with evidence.
• Original preservation and derivative handling are evaluated.
• Website-delivery suitability is demonstrated using representative samples.
• Book-export suitability and limitations are assessed against the publishing requirements.
• Provider plans, costs, quotas, capacity and operational constraints are verified or explicitly identified as unresolved.
• Inventory totals, classifications, sample identifiers and pilot success criteria reconcile across the supporting reports.
• Recommendation and trade-offs are documented; the decision-log approval claim is reconciled with confirmed decision status.
• Remaining dependencies and proposed next steps are recorded without implying recovery, migration or purchasing is complete.

Additional Context

Use recovery findings to inform the evaluation. This research does not authorise purchasing a service, uploading assets, replacing images or migrating storage.

test: scripts - Expand test coverage and add media-library audit remains a related contribution, not evidence that all research requirements are complete.

Definition of Ready (DoR)

• Research goal and context described.
• Approach and evaluation areas listed.
• Recovery dependency identified.
• Representative recovery findings are available.
• Website and book-publishing evaluation requirements are sufficiently defined.

Estimate: not requested; no estimate is proposed.

Definition of Done (DoD)

• Research acceptance criteria are satisfied with linked evidence.
• Findings and supporting documentation are reconciled.
• Recommendation, trade-offs, decision status and next steps are documented.
• Remaining uncertainties have explicit follow-up actions.
• Any repository contribution follows that repository’s verified branch and PR instructions.
• Linked work reflects the research outcome; neither this issue nor its parent is automatically closed merely because PR test: scripts - Expand test coverage and add media-library audit #296 merges.

Immediate next steps

Verify current pricing and account allowances, assess visual upload/tagging and maintenance workflows, and evaluate actual recovered samples. Assess print suitability and gaps while retaining deferred print-ready delivery.

Evidence required

Dated provider/account sources, representative measurements, observed workflow findings, trade-offs and an explicit approval decision. Research does not authorise purchases, uploads, configuration or migration.

Specification references

• Specification
• Plan
• Tasks

Draft specification/planning references at revision 02aee367; not evidence of approval, completed recovery or implementation. Task correspondences below describe relevant scope, not exclusive ownership or completed work.

Relevant requirements: US3, FR-010–013. T001–T002 and T026–T031 support research and evaluation-framework design; they do not establish completed provider trials or approval.

Branch instructions

Planning guidance, not implementation approval. Repository revision D: 4ecdb26d9655a48bf000a7c89da2f70383edce87; shared governance revision G: 8f28eca80bff198879f7aaf496717dc0551bb32e.

• Repository: lightspeedwp/ThisOneTimeOnAcidCom.
• Implementing target: this evaluation issue; counterpart GitHub issue 280. Proposed contribution is evidence-backed evaluation documentation, not storage implementation.
• Parent context: existing coordination relationship retained. Withhold parent identifiers/URLs from branches, PR titles/bodies and prompts while association effects remain unverified. Never use the parent as a native development or closing target.
• Allowed closing targets: none for this provisional contribution. Whole-outcome acceptance, representative evidence and reviewer approval remain outstanding.
• Branch state: proposed new branch, not created; no existing branch verified suitable for reuse.
• Branch: docs/media-provider-evaluation.
• Classification: evaluation documentation; docs/ reflects actual proposed file changes independently of the research label. No runtime feature or provider configuration included.
• Base: develop at D; refresh before separately authorised branch creation.
• Naming policy: local guide, validator and organisation strategy. Static pattern inspection only, not executable validation.
• PR template: canonical shared documentation template. Local workflow suggests absent pr_documentation.md; maintainer must confirm manual selection before PR creation. No template/workflow edits proposed; suggestions do not establish automatic loading.
• Existing work: merged audit/test/specification contributions do not prove evaluation completion. Surviving mixed report/test branch is not recommended for reuse.
• Constraints: preserve unrelated work. No branch creation/rename/reuse, force-push, merge, deployment, purchase, account creation, upload, provider trial, LFS/Netlify configuration or reference replacement authorised.

Expected file changes

Provisional bounded documentation plan, not complete acceptance or cross-report reconciliation. Existing paths below read at D; existence does not authorise edits.

Existing .github/reports/ placement conflicts with root reports/{topic}/ guidance. Do not move or duplicate reports automatically. Inventory/category/sample reconciliation is incompletely inspected; additional catalogue/report edits require a revised bounded plan.

Reconcile shared decisions before final workflow approval. Coordinate with pending catalogue/validation work without applying those issue drafts. Preserve protected images/logos/references, protected components and Supabase artefacts, attribution, changelog, centrally managed workflows and human-controlled locked configuration.

Static inspection only. Future build requirements or a documentation-only exception need maintainer agreement; no test files or results invented. This issue synchronises publicly: saving requires exact-preview approval covering public disclosure; exclude credentials, private account details and restricted recovery material. Status and existing relationships/associations remain unchanged.