# Media Routing Requirements Quality & Implementation Planning Checklist **Purpose**: Validate requirements quality, architectural fidelity, and implementation plan completeness for the media routing feature **Created**: 2026-08-24 **Feature**: [spec.md](../spec.md) | [plan.md](../plan.md) | [research.md](../research.md) | [data-model.md](../data-model.md) **Note**: This checklist is a reviewer-owned review artifact. Mark an item `[x]` only when the reviewer determines the quality criterion is satisfied. **Marker Semantics**: `[x]` means the criterion has been reviewed and satisfied. It does not mean implementation work is complete. --- ## 1. Requirement & Plan Fidelity - [x] CHK001 Does the specification define behavioral requirements for structural media relevance to the publication while the plan and research define the concrete, minimal DOM parsing algorithm without contradiction? [Fidelity, Spec §FR-001, §FR-004; Plan §4.1; Research §Decisão 1] - [x] CHK002 Are all 5 media subtypes (`video`, `image`, `images`, `embed`, `mixed`) exhaustively specified with their definitions? [Completeness, Spec §FR-009] - [x] CHK003 Are the payload fields for compact LLM input generation fully defined across the plan and data model without arbitrary truncation of editorial text? [Completeness, Plan §4.2; Data-Model §2] - [x] CHK004 Are the required fields, mandatory file generation in all successful batch runs, and minimal envelope structure (`articles`, containing `[]` when zero media articles) for `*_media.json` explicitly specified without extra report fields? [Completeness, Spec §FR-014, §FR-015; Plan §4.4; Contract: media-output.schema.json] - [x] CHK005 Are all 11 mandatory operational metrics enumerated with their exact tracking points documented in the plan? [Completeness, Spec §FR-028; Plan §4.5] - [x] CHK006 Are the specific conditions that trigger operational fallback defined for each provider? [Completeness, Spec §FR-019, §FR-020; Plan §4.3] - [x] CHK007 Are error handling and reporting requirements specified when all 3 LLM providers fail, recording the failure inline in the main JSON with `classification_status: "failed"` without creating separate failure files or DTOs? [Completeness, Spec §FR-022; Plan §4.3; Data-Model §2.6] - [x] CHK008 Are all ungrounded technical promises, invented latency SLOs (<1.5s, <10ms) and artificial benchmarks completely absent from the plan? [Fidelity, Plan §2, §4] --- ## 2. Minimal Implementation & Code Reusability - [x] CHK009 Were real repository files inspected, reusing existing dependencies (`beautifulsoup4`, `urllib.request`) and avoiding new package installations? [Minimalism, Plan §2, §5] - [x] CHK010 Is the implementation organized as lightweight functions in `scripts/extract_article_contents.py` rather than unnecessary class hierarchies or generic provider frameworks? [Minimalism, Plan §5] - [x] CHK011 Are speculative abstractions, generic provider frameworks, and unnecessary domain DTOs (e.g. `MediaBatchReport`, `MediaMetricsCollector`, `FailedArticle`, `ClassificationFailedArticle`) completely absent? [Minimalism, Plan §5, §7] - [x] CHK012 Was `src/tools/adapters/llm.py` evaluated and its non-reuse properly justified due to its coupling to the ECP domain rather than creating redundant provider frameworks? [Minimalism, Plan §5; Research §Decisão 3] --- ## 3. Structural DOM Gate - [x] CHK013 Is the DOM structural gate defined without treating `` alone as video, without double-counting `
/` wrappers, and distinguishing editorial content from page structure (`
`, `