---

title: "GPT Current — UI 4 Mothers" tags:

• ui-review
• gpt-current
• 4-mothers
• incomex date: 2026-07-02 status: current

---

GPT Current — UI 4 Mothers

Latest Codex context report:

knowledge/dev/ui-review/current/codex-gpt-context-report.md

Codex conclusion:

Verdict: GO_WITH_PATCH

B1 modit-entry-enhance.js: OK only as a surgical/append-only patch with pre/post public QA.
B2 split system-manifest.js / qa-contracts.js: NO_GO in same prompt; must be a separate design/execution phase.
Prompt v4 as-is: NO_GO because the full prompt was not found and the described B1+B2 scope is too broad.

Current production evidence:

{
  "public_url": "https://incomex.vn/ui-preview/mcp-writes/",
  "qa_result": {
    "total": 111,
    "pass": 102,
    "fail": 0,
    "warn": 9,
    "wdcut": 0,
    "timeouts": 0,
    "seconds": 57,
    "ok": true
  },
  "web_state": "11/11 canonical core files matched live length/hash",
  "web_intent": "empty whitelist, changed_count=0",
  "sensitive_probe": ".git/config .env .env.local .DS_Store returned 404"
}

Immediate GPT review items:

1. Decide whether B1 needs any patch at all, given engine duplicate guard already exists and QA is green.
2. If B1 patch is needed, constrain it to minimum touched file(s), with public QA acceptance.
3. Reject B2 split inside the same prompt; request a separate B2 design covering canonical.core_files, loader order, web-state.json, web-intent.json, path-integrity and deep-equal strategy.
4. Confirm no report/golden/backup/cache files are written under public ui-preview.
5. Confirm no git add ., no manual SQL insert, no direct ALTER TABLE, no Nuxt business logic.

Owner questions:

1. Should GPT review only, or should Codex next draft a B1-only surgical prompt?
2. Is B2 split mandatory now, or can it become a separate phase?
3. Where should non-KB audit artifacts live if Owner wants an additional filesystem copy outside public docroot?
4. Should Codex rerun Playwright with a longer timeout to capture the 9 warning details?