Delivery is healthy. Verification is the bottleneck, and the PRD gap is not closing.
| Sprint | 0702 · ends 07 Aug, 2 days out |
|---|---|
| Work items | 89 real tasks (+31 parent stories that roll up) |
| Done | 11 (12%) — all design, all one person |
| In review | 72 (81%) |
| In progress | 6 (7%) |
| Shipped to the API this cycle | 10 new consumer endpoints + a whole new admin service (29 endpoints) |
The three things worth knowing
81% of the sprint is sitting in REVIEW/QA, and 97 of those items arrived there in the last 3 days — 56 of them today. This is an end-of-sprint pile-up, not a stale queue. Nothing is rotting; everything is waiting. With 2 days left, this queue will not clear without a deliberate plan, and the sprint will close with most work “done but unverified”.
Zero engineering items are marked Done. All 11 completions are design work by one person. Every backend and frontend task is in REVIEW/QA. Either the review step is under-resourced, or “Done” is being reserved for something the board isn't capturing — worth settling, because right now the board cannot tell you what has actually landed.
The build is moving away from the PRD, not toward it. The 10 new consumer endpoints are chat, profile and onboarding refinements. The four capabilities the PRD calls MVP — multi-currency/FX, virtual cards, international KYC tier, consent management — remain at zero code, unchanged for two cycles. FX and cards both need a partner selected before engineering can start, so they are the long-lead items and they are not started.
The admin API has no two-factor authentication, while the dashboard spec makes it mandatory. It is email + password, with no lockout and no rate limiting, guarding accounts that can read customers' BVNs and suspend accounts. Detail in admin-api-rfc.md §4.3.
(1) triage the review queue before 07 Aug, (2) fix admin auth before any real staff account exists, (3) make a partner decision on FX and card issuing.
Sprint 0702 in detail
1.1 How to read the board
The export has 120 rows, but they are two different things:
| Row type | Count | What it is |
|---|---|---|
| Parent stories | 31 | Umbrella items. All marked “Unassigned” and all have child tasks — this is a hierarchy artifact, not unstaffed work. |
| Leaf work items | 89 | The real units of work: 66 tasks with a parent, plus 23 standalone stories. |
All figures below use the 89 leaf items. A typical parent looks like BVA-I146 "User Account Detail View", with a design child and a backend child underneath it.
1.2 Status
| Status | Items | Share |
|---|---|---|
| REVIEW/QA | 72 | 81% |
| Done | 11 | 12% |
| In progress | 6 | 7% |
1.3 The review queue is new, not stale
This is the most important nuance in the whole export, and it changes the diagnosis.
97 of 98 review-queue transitions happened in the last three days. Median time since last touch is 0 days; the oldest untouched item is 7 days.
So this is not a queue of forgotten work. It is a wave of work completing at once, right before the sprint boundary. That is a healthier problem than a rotting backlog — but it produces the same outcome if unaddressed: the sprint closes on 07 Aug with ~80% of items unverified, and either the definition of done quietly slips or the work rolls forward.
Median age since creation is 15 days, against an 18-day sprint. Items are being worked steadily and landing together.
1.4 Who is doing what
| Person | Items | Done | In review | In progress | Apparent role |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Samuel | 47 | 0 | 44 | 3 | Engineering (26 tasks + 21 stories) |
| Ayomikun Araoye | 28 | 0 | 25 | 3 | Backend (27 tasks, 1 story) |
| Philip Chidera | 14 | 11 | 3 | 0 | Design (all items are screens, UI, flows) |
Two observations:
David carries 53% of the sprint (47 of 89). That is a concentration risk regardless of throughput — it is a single point of failure for both delivery and review.
Only design work reaches Done. Philip's 11 completions are the entire Done column. Design has a working definition of done; engineering does not appear to, or the reviewer for engineering work is the constraint.
1.5 By epic
| Epic | Items | Done | In review | In progress |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (no epic) | 56 | 5 | 48 | 3 |
| Admin | 14 | 6 | 5 | 3 |
| Banking Path (Nigeria / BVN / Anchor) | 8 | 0 | 8 | 0 |
| Onboarding & Authentication | 7 | 0 | 7 | 0 |
| Path Selection & Chat-Only Path | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Onboarding Completion & Chat Entry | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
63% of items have no epic. Combined with 1.6, this means the board can report activity but not progress-toward-a-goal — you cannot currently answer “how far through the banking path are we?” from this data.
Admin is the healthiest epic, and it is the newest — consistent with it being the current focus.
1.6 The board cannot measure velocity
| Field | State |
|---|---|
| Estimation Points | 0 on all 120 items |
| Priority | “None” on all 120 items |
| Tags | Empty on all 120 items |
| Epic | Missing on 63% of leaf items |
No estimates means no velocity, no burndown, and no forecast. No priority means the review queue has no triage order — with 72 items and 2 days, something has to decide what gets looked at first, and the board offers nothing.
This is cheap to fix and would pay for itself immediately: even coarse T-shirt sizing on the remaining work would tell you whether 07 Aug is achievable.
What actually shipped
Verified against the code, not the board.
2.1 Consumer API: 90 → 100 endpoints
| Area | Endpoints | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Upgrade ladder | 6 | chat_only → chat_banking. Duplicates /kyc/* closely — see api-rfc.md §5.1 |
| Clear chat | 1 | Per-user watermark; survives new messages |
| Delete message | 1 | Was a proposal in the last review — now shipped. Sender-only in both modes |
| Contact change | 2 | Phone/email change, step-up gated |
| Contact profile | — | GET /users/{id} now returns relationship-scoped phone and shared counts |
The contact-profile work is worth calling out as good: phone is returned only when the two users already share a conversation, specifically to stop the endpoint becoming a number-harvesting tool. That instinct is what the security findings elsewhere are asking for.
2.2 New service: beevia-admin-api (29 endpoints)
Three of the dashboard spec's eight modules are built: Authentication (partial), Admin Account Management, and User Management & Support Tools.
The KYC review surface is the strongest part — values masked by default, reveals logged with the admin id, and permissions escalating with how destructive the action is.
2.3 Database extracted to a package
Schema and migrations now ship as @drumbell-technologies/beevia-db-schema, consumed by both services. This is the structural change that makes a separate admin service defensible rather than risky.
Product-vs-PRD gap
The board shows steady delivery. Measured against the PRD, the gap has not moved.
| PRD MVP capability | State | Change since last cycle |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-currency / FX | No code. PaymentService.activeNgn() hard-codes NGN | None |
| Virtual cards | No code. No module, table, or provider capability | None |
| International KYC tier | Local (BVN/Nigeria) only | None |
| Consent management | No endpoint or record | None |
Why this matters now rather than later: FX and card issuance both require a partner to be selected before engineering can begin. They are the longest-lead items in the plan and neither is started. Every other gap on the list is work the team can do unblocked.
There is a legitimate strategic answer here — that multi-currency and cards move to post-launch and the PRD gets re-scoped. What is expensive is the current position: documented as core, treated as later, which leaves the money-handling API shape unsettled for every client that touches it.
Risks
| # | Risk | Severity | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Admin API has no 2FA, no lockout, no login rate limiting — guarding BVN access and account suspension | High | Fix before any production staff account exists. admin-api-rfc.md §4.3 |
| 2 | Admin guards are per-controller; a new controller with no decorator is fully unauthenticated | High | Register as APP_GUARD, make permissions fail-closed. §4.2 |
| 3 | 72 items unverified with 2 days left | High | Triage now; decide what ships vs rolls |
| 4 | Trust & Safety module is unbuildable as specified — it asks for “reported messages” but chat is E2EE | Blocking | Product decision needed. Three options in admin-api-rfc.md §5.1 |
| 5 | Reports accumulate unread today — conversation_reports is populated by the app; nothing reads it | Medium | Ships with the moderation queue |
| 6 | Fees and provider routing edited by hand in production — both documented “admin-managed”, no route in either service | Medium | Highest-value item in dashboard Module 6 |
| 7 | 53% of the sprint on one person | Medium | Spread load; it is a review bottleneck as well as a delivery one |
| 8 | No estimates, priorities or epics on most items | Medium | Cheap to fix; currently no forecast is possible |
| 9 | Admin/consumer tokens share a signing secret | Low–Medium | Mitigated by a type check today. Separate the secrets. §4.1 |
What I would do this week
Before 07 Aug
Triage the review queue. 72 items, 2 days. Decide explicitly what gets verified and what rolls into the next sprint, rather than letting the boundary decide.
Settle what “Done” means for engineering. Zero engineering items have reached it across an 18-day sprint. Either the gate is unclear or the reviewer is the constraint — both are fixable, but not by accident.
Before any staff uses the admin dashboard
2FA, fail-closed guards, separate admin JWT secret, Swagger off in production. None are features; all are cheaper now than after the first real admin account exists.
Before the next sprint is planned
Decide on FX and card-issuing partners — or formally re-scope them out of MVP. They cannot start without this, and they are the longest lead items in the plan.
Resolve the Trust & Safety / E2EE conflict. Module 4 is specified in a way the architecture cannot satisfy. Metadata-only moderation is a day's work; reporter-attached excerpts need a consumer-app change and a consent flow.
Add estimates and epics. Even coarse ones. Without them the next status report will be as unable to forecast as this one.
Appendix — method
Figures derive from the 89 leaf items; the 31 parent stories are excluded to avoid double-counting. Both totals are stated in 1.1 so either can be reconstructed.
“Unassigned” is a literal value in the export, not an empty field. All 31 such items are parent stories.
Endpoint counts are derived from controller decorators in each service and cross-checked against openapi.yaml (100) and openapi.admin.yaml (29), which validate against the code with zero drift.
Sprint window and status transition dates come from Sprint Start/End Date and Last Modified.
The board export was filtered to Sprints Contains 0702, so this reflects one sprint, not the whole project history.