Service technologies
WCF, ASMX/SOAP, and .NET Remoting rows ask what static evidence would be needed before public wording changes.
Legacy .NET evidence lane
Legacy .NET review starts with status rows, not support claims.
This concept lane shows how TraceMap can frame reviewer questions for WCF, ASMX/SOAP, .NET Remoting, WebForms, WinForms, legacy data metadata, project diagnostics, and modernization follow-up using deterministic static evidence language.
Public claim level: concept. No public conclusion without evidence. TraceMap works from repository snapshots and checked-in artifacts, not runtime traffic, production telemetry, live system inspection, or migration execution.
Branch and proof boundary
Status labels describe proof posture, not general availability.
shippedAllowed only when exact wording is true on main and backed by a public-safe proof path.demoAllowed only for checked-in public-safe demo artifacts, summaries, or validation output that support the exact wording.devAllowed only when exact wording is true on the target branch and clearly not a main claim.futureAllowed for reviewer-question or evidence-shape framing without support, detection, or coverage claims.hiddenUsed when proof, validation detail, or capability scope is not public-safe; rows name only abstract framework families.Surface families
Required legacy .NET themes stay visible beside their limits.
Legacy UI
WebForms and WinForms rows stay limited to checked-in markup, designer, event, navigation, and owner-review questions.
Data metadata
DBML, EDMX, typed DataSet, TableAdapter, provider, connection-name, and mapping clues remain static metadata questions.
Project diagnostics
Target frameworks, project style, restore clues, generated-file uncertainty, failures, syntax fallback, and gaps keep coverage labels attached.
Evidence-status matrix
Each row carries a proof requirement and a limitation.
| Surface | Reviewer question | Evidence shape | Evidence status | Proof path required | Limitation | Allowed wording | Forbidden wording |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Status vocabulary | Which labels can a public page use without upgrading proof? | Row-level status labels: shipped, demo, dev, future, and hidden. |
future vocabulary |
Public-safe branch or demo proof before any non-future row repeats stronger wording. | Vocabulary alone is not evidence of scanner behavior or reducer output. | Status labels define proof posture. | Status labels prove legacy .NET support. |
| Evidence tiers | What strength of static evidence can support a bounded statement? | Tier1Semantic, Tier2Structural, Tier3SyntaxOrTextual, and Tier4Unknown with rule ID, file path, line span, commit SHA, extractor version, and limitation. |
future vocabulary |
Route-specific proof path showing rule IDs, tiers, coverage labels, and limitations for the exact claim. | Tier names do not imply compiler-resolved proof when only structural, syntax, textual, or unknown evidence exists. | No conclusion is supported without a rule ID, evidence tier, limitation, and proof path. | Any static clue is semantic proof. |
| Reduced coverage and analysis gaps | What happens when project load, restore, build, metadata parsing, or toolchain discovery fails? | Coverage labels, syntax fallback, analysis-gap facts, and reduced-coverage report language. | future vocabulary |
Public-safe validation or report evidence showing the gap label and fallback tier for the exact scenario. | Failed build or failed project load means reduced coverage, not a clean repository. Syntax fallback is useful evidence, not compiler-resolved semantic proof. | Reduced coverage keeps the review question visible. | Failed load still proves a complete clean scan. |
| WCF | Which service hosts, service references, contracts, operations, bindings, endpoint metadata, generated clients, or metadata-normalization questions need owner review? | Named hidden surface family only. | hidden pending validation |
Hidden legacy evidence ledger; future public-safe proof must identify the exact row, rule IDs, tiers, branch, limitation, and redacted proof route. | No service reachability, deployed endpoint, binding compatibility, operation execution, downloaded metadata, or support result is published. | WCF is a hidden legacy .NET evidence family that needs proof before stronger wording. | TraceMap ships WCF service and endpoint coverage. |
| ASMX/SOAP | Which service declarations, SOAP operation metadata, generated proxy clues, or checked-in metadata would need review? | Named hidden, unledgered surface family only. | hidden pending ledger entry |
Future ledger entry and public-safe proof route before any detection, operation, proxy, or metadata wording is repeated. | No service route, operation result, service address, generated proxy support, or deployed SOAP behavior is claimed. | ASMX/SOAP is a legacy .NET review question until proof exists. | TraceMap detects ASMX/SOAP services. |
| .NET Remoting | Which remoting API references, channel-registration clues, marshal-by-reference types, or remoting configuration need source-owner follow-up? | Named hidden surface family only. | hidden pending validation |
Hidden legacy evidence ledger; future proof must be public-safe and tied to rule IDs, tiers, branch, and limitations. | No hosted service, activation path, production usage, exploitability, or security posture result is claimed. | .NET Remoting remains a hidden evidence family pending proof. | TraceMap proves remoting usage or risk. |
| WebForms | Which markup event bindings, code-behind handlers, designer fields, route or navigation clues, and postback questions need review? | Named hidden surface family with route and navigation aspects still proof-gated. | hidden pending validation and ledger entry |
Hidden legacy evidence ledger plus a future public-safe validation route for any route, navigation, or postback wording. | No browser path, UI reachability, event execution, navigation behavior, ViewState behavior, or user workflow execution is claimed. | WebForms is a hidden legacy UI evidence family that can frame owner questions. | TraceMap traces WebForms user workflows. |
| WinForms | Which form or control metadata, designer-file clues, event-handler references, launch clues, navigation clues, or UI-to-backend questions need review? | Named hidden, unledgered surface family only. | hidden pending ledger entry |
Future ledger entry and proof path before any desktop UI wiring, event, navigation, launch, or backend-review wording is repeated. | No runtime UI reachability, user action, desktop launch, event execution, or backend behavior is claimed. | WinForms is a legacy .NET review question until public-safe proof exists. | TraceMap maps WinForms navigation and backend calls. |
| Legacy data metadata | Which DBML, EDMX, typed DataSet, TableAdapter, provider metadata, connection-name metadata, or ORM-like mapping clues need database and owner review? | Named hidden surface family only. | hidden pending validation |
Hidden legacy evidence ledger; future proof must summarize public-safe metadata without raw values. | No database existence, query execution, schema compatibility, permission, package compatibility, storage state, or production data result is claimed. | Legacy data metadata can be named only as a hidden proof-gated family. | TraceMap proves database compatibility or query behavior. |
| Project and toolchain diagnostics | Which target framework, project style, SDK or non-SDK shape, toolset, restore clue, package metadata, generated-file uncertainty, project-load failure, build failure, syntax fallback, or analysis gap explains coverage? | Named hidden surface family plus general reduced-coverage vocabulary. | hidden pending validation |
Hidden legacy evidence ledger; public-safe validation must show the exact coverage label and limitation before stronger wording. | Missing toolchains, restore failures, generated-file gaps, project-load failures, and build failures do not become install advice, clean status, or complete analysis. | Diagnostics can explain reduced coverage when proof and limits are attached. | Build failure still means the repository is clean. |
| Modernization review use | How should owners turn evidence statuses into planning questions, follow-up, proof gaps, review sequencing, and migration-planning input? | Reviewer handoff language that points to proof paths, owner questions, limitations, and stop conditions. | future reviewer framing |
Review claim checklist, proof path index, and route-specific validation before any row is promoted. | Planning input is not migration feasibility, migration completeness, release approval, operational safety, or replacement of human judgment. | Use statuses to decide what proof or owner review is missing. | Static status rows approve the modernization plan. |
The matrix is intentionally conservative. Hidden support rows can name public framework families only when the hidden label, proof gap, and limitation travel with the row.
Modernization review
The lane is a planning handoff, not a migration decision.
Owner follow-upRows identify who needs to answer a question when public-safe proof is missing or hidden.
Proof gapsFuture or hidden rows require a proof path before the wording can be repeated outside the lane.
Review sequencingReduced coverage, analysis gaps, and syntax fallback stay visible so review order is honest.
Planning inputEvidence statuses can inform planning questions; they do not certify feasibility, completeness, release safety, or runtime behavior.
Proof paths
Use existing public-safe routes until row-specific proof exists.
Limitations
Static evidence remains bounded even when it is useful.
semantic proofCompiler-resolved Roslyn symbol evidence is stronger than syntax fallback, but still static and repository-bounded.structural proofKnown framework or project patterns can guide review while keeping framework and toolchain limits visible.syntax fallbackSyntax-only or textual evidence keeps partial analysis useful, but it cannot resolve compiler symbols.unknown gapsUnsupported project type, missing toolchain, malformed metadata, or generated-file uncertainty blocks stronger conclusions.Non-claims
The lane does not publish operational or private proof.
- No runtime behavior, production traffic, live endpoint existence, endpoint performance, service reachability, UI reachability, user workflow execution, outage cause, release approval, release safety, operational safety, security posture, exploitability, database existence, query execution, schema compatibility, package compatibility, migration feasibility, migration completeness, or complete product coverage is claimed.
- TraceMap does not replace runtime telemetry, source-owner review, architecture review, security review, database review, test results, build or restore validation, migration planning, release approval, or human judgment.
- No AI or LLM workflow, embedding workflow, vector database, prompt-based classification, probabilistic ranking, autonomous approval, or agentic release decision is part of this lane.
- No raw source snippets, raw SQL, config values, connection strings, secrets, tokens, credentials, local paths, raw remotes, generated scan directories, raw facts, raw SQLite indexes, analyzer log content, raw service addresses, raw endpoint values, database identifiers, private sample names, customer names, production identifiers, hidden validation details, hidden capability counts, or unreleased sequencing are published.
- Artifact names such as
scan-manifest.json,facts.ndjson,index.sqlite,report.md, and analyzer logs are output categories here, not raw contents or paths.