# Test consecutive workflow transitions

Illustrative planning brief; no automatic product import.

Synthetic planning case: A model has edges A→B, B→A and B→C. Separate tests exercise each edge, but no trace retains two consecutive transitions. C has no outgoing edge.

## Decision

There are three legal two-edge sequences: A→B→A, A→B→C and B→A→B. All need sequence evidence under the declared two-edge objective; isolated edge results do not provide it.

## Owned work

- Declare sequence length and graph
  - Owner role: Model planner
  - Acceptance evidence: The objective is two consecutive edges, not every arbitrary trace.
- Enumerate legal compositions
  - Owner role: Reviewer
  - Acceptance evidence: Only destination-to-origin matches generate the three listed sequences.
- Record continuous traces
  - Owner role: Rehearsal owner
  - Acceptance evidence: Each check preserves the intermediate state and ordered pair rather than joining unrelated tests.

## Workflow

1. Declare sequence length and graph. Check: The objective is two consecutive edges, not every arbitrary trace.
2. Enumerate legal compositions. Check: Only destination-to-origin matches generate the three listed sequences.
3. Record continuous traces. Check: Each check preserves the intermediate state and ordered pair rather than joining unrelated tests.

## Judgment

No full state-space or software defect coverage is claimed. This is a tiny external graph.


## Filled manual planning note

There are three legal two-edge sequences: A→B→A, A→B→C and B→A→B. All need sequence evidence under the declared two-edge objective; isolated edge results do not provide it. Compose each edge with edges whose origin matches its destination. A→B has two continuations; B→A has one; B→C has none. Therefore 2+1+0=3 legal length-two sequences. No full state-space or software defect coverage is claimed. This is a tiny external graph.


## Workflow questions

### Can I combine two separate passing logs?

Not as a continuous two-edge trace unless the shared intermediate state and continuity are actually established.

### Does this cover sequences of length three?

No. The explicitly chosen objective is length two.

## Product connection

Use the owned checks and downloaded brief to discuss this planning decision alongside your TeamBoostAI tasks. Confirm available fields, roles and account features separately. The example is manual; it does not calculate live analytics, create work or run an experiment in the product.

Confirm account availability before adopting this manual outline.

## Original worked case

Synthetic records, manual planning only. No account import or live analytics.

### Inspect the invented case records

Sequence | Edges in order | Current sequence evidence
--- | --- | ---
A → B → A | A→B then B→A | None
A → B → C | A→B then B→C | None
B → A → B | B→A then A→B | None

### Reasoning

Compose each edge with edges whose origin matches its destination. A→B has two continuations; B→A has one; B→C has none. Therefore 2+1+0=3 legal length-two sequences.

### Bounded result

There are three legal two-edge sequences: A→B→A, A→B→C and B→A→B. All need sequence evidence under the declared two-edge objective; isolated edge results do not provide it.

### Distinct decision

The artifact enumerates ordered adjacent-edge obligations rather than unordered factor combinations or isolated transition counts.

### Limits

No full state-space or software defect coverage is claimed. This is a tiny external graph.

### Definitions and method context

- NIST: state-based and event-sequence testing context — https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/automated-combinatorial-testing-for-software — General context for state-based and event-sequence testing. All graphs, guards, fixtures and recovery contracts here are original toy definitions; the source does not certify their completeness or product behavior.