{
  "example_kind": "original synthetic manual planning case",
  "slug": "invalid-combination-test-exclusion",
  "title": "Keep invalid test combinations out of coverage counts",
  "scenario": "Synthetic planning case: A review matrix crosses guest/member actor with view/edit operation. The declared contract makes guest-edit invalid; the other three combinations require functional evidence.",
  "layout": "protocol",
  "dataset": {
    "heading": "Inspect the invented case records",
    "headers": [
      "Actor",
      "Operation",
      "Declared class",
      "Required review"
    ],
    "rows": [
      [
        "Guest",
        "View",
        "Valid",
        "Functional evidence"
      ],
      [
        "Guest",
        "Edit",
        "Invalid",
        "Expected rejection evidence"
      ],
      [
        "Member",
        "View",
        "Valid",
        "Functional evidence"
      ],
      [
        "Member",
        "Edit",
        "Valid",
        "Functional evidence"
      ]
    ]
  },
  "derivation": "The full two-by-two grid has four rows. Its contract partitions them into three valid behaviors and one rejection case; the two sets need different expected results.",
  "result": "Keep three valid functional combinations and one explicit invalid contract case. Do not erase the invalid row or count it as a missing valid feature test.",
  "boundary": "The artifact partitions combination coverage by an explicit validity contract.",
  "limitations": "These are invented contract roles, not claims about TeamBoostAI permissions or role enforcement.",
  "sources": [
    "original"
  ],
  "tasks": [
    [
      "Verify the governing contract",
      "Behavior owner",
      "Guest-edit is deliberately forbidden in the external example, not assumed from a role name."
    ],
    [
      "Separate valid and rejection coverage",
      "Test planner",
      "All four rows remain visible with the correct expected outcome class."
    ],
    [
      "Review exclusions independently",
      "Acceptance reviewer",
      "The rejected combination has evidence rather than being silently deleted from the plan."
    ]
  ],
  "faqs": [
    [
      "Can every unavailable combination be called invalid?",
      "No. Confirm the actual contract; missing implementation and forbidden behavior are different."
    ],
    [
      "Is the rejection row irrelevant to assurance?",
      "No. Its expected boundary may need explicit evidence."
    ]
  ],
  "method_references": [
    {
      "id": "original",
      "title": "Original worked-case definitions",
      "scope": "Definitions, policy choices, records and calculations are authored for this worksheet. No external standard, statistical validation or live product measurement is claimed."
    }
  ]
}