← Bob-Wire · c10

plan.md

c10 Plan — Security Overview Benchmark

Contents
  1. Summary
  2. Source Corpus
  3. Benchmark Rubric
  4. Comparison Process
  5. Synthesis Rule
  6. Build Order
  7. Acceptance Checks
  8. Assumptions

Summary

This cycle benchmarks c9's overview-oriented wireframes and briefs against the current industry pattern for first-load security dashboards.

The output is not a winner-take-all decision between existing pages. The output is one synthesized wireframe brief built from the best-performing sections, narrative patterns, and drilldown behaviors found across c9.

Use tmp/security-dashboard-global-overview-research.md as the benchmark source of truth for what a modern security global overview should communicate above the fold.

Source Corpus

Primary scored set

These artifacts are scored directly against the rubric:

  1. c9 home wireframe and home-meaning-layer.md
  2. c9 security wireframe and security-posture-board.md
  3. c9 inventory wireframe and inventory-meaning-layer.md

Secondary pattern-source set

These artifacts are reviewed for reusable ideas only:

  • sessions-significance-ledger.md
  • api-key-risk-story.md
  • alerting.vue
  • settings.vue
  • generic inventory/[entity]/index.vue
  • generic inventory/[entity]/detail.vue

Do not score any secondary artifact as a global overview candidate.

Benchmark Rubric

Score each primary artifact on a 1 to 5 scale for the following:

  1. Posture clarity
    • Does the page quickly communicate overall security state?
  2. Priority / what matters now
    • Does the page clearly identify the most urgent or important concerns?
  3. Concentration / where risk is clustered
    • Does the page show where risk is concentrated across assets, identities, regions, accounts, or systems?
  4. Trend or change visibility
    • Does the page communicate change over time, movement, novelty, or deterioration?
  5. Coverage / trustworthiness visibility
    • Does the page show coverage gaps, confidence limits, or reasons the reader should trust or question the dashboard?
  6. Explanation quality
    • Does the page explain why a concern matters rather than only naming it?
  7. Drilldown clarity
    • Does the page make the next investigative click obvious?
  8. Above-the-fold visual economy
    • Does the page use above-the-fold space efficiently without drowning the user in equal-weight information?

Scoring rule

For every score:

  • record the numeric score
  • capture one sentence on what the page does well
  • capture one sentence on the most important gap

Use the same rubric and scoring standard across all three primary artifacts.

Comparison Process

Step 1 — Inventory the source set

Capture the exact artifacts under review and label each one as either:

  • primary scored overview artifact
  • secondary pattern-source artifact

Step 2 — Score the primary overview artifacts

For each primary artifact:

  • review the wireframe and matching brief together
  • score it across all eight rubric categories
  • capture strongest sections
  • capture weakest sections

Step 3 — Map gaps to industry patterns

For each meaningful weakness in the primary set:

  • identify the missing or underpowered overview behavior
  • map that gap to a specific pattern from tmp/security-dashboard-global-overview-research.md

Use explicit pattern references such as:

  • posture summary
  • priority layer
  • asset concentration
  • coverage gaps
  • trend context
  • graph context
  • SOC snapshot
  • exposure management
  • asset-centric triage
  • attack-path overview

Step 4 — Select winning elements by section

Do not choose one existing c9 page as the winner.

Instead, select the best-performing elements by section, for example:

  • top-row posture summary from one page
  • strongest risk-story panel from another page
  • best concentration view from a third page
  • strongest drilldown cues from a secondary artifact

Step 5 — Write the synthesized brief

Produce one new overview brief that:

  • combines the best sections from c9
  • closes the most important benchmark gaps
  • stays focused on first-load / global overview behavior
  • remains a wireframe brief, not a build spec or mockup brief

Synthesis Rule

The final brief must be a new overview direction composed from the best-performing sections across c9.

It must not:

  • copy one c9 page wholesale
  • drift into mockup styling decisions
  • turn into a generic dashboard card list
  • benchmark or optimize for non-overview pages

Build Order

  1. Inventory the c9 primary and secondary source artifacts
  2. Score the primary overview artifacts against the rubric
  3. Extract winning sections and reusable interaction patterns
  4. Write the synthesized brief

Acceptance Checks

  • cycles/CYCLES.md lists c10.security-overview-benchmark as active
  • CYCLE.md explicitly excludes mockups
  • plan.md names tmp/security-dashboard-global-overview-research.md as the benchmark source
  • the rubric covers posture, priority, concentration, trend, coverage, explanation, drilldown, and above-the-fold economy
  • the method selects winning sections by section, not by whole page
  • the cycle ends in one synthesized wireframe brief

Assumptions

  • c10 is the next available cycle number
  • “best of c9” means selecting the best sections and concepts, not choosing a single winner page
  • only home, security, and inventory qualify as primary overview candidates
  • the research doc stays in tmp/ during setup and can be formalized later if the evaluation pass needs it

Qpoint Brand Style Guide