Engineers
Which endpoint, static path, changed surface, package, SQL/config surface, or gap should I inspect before making the next code change?
Incident review orientation
Use static evidence to orient incident-adjacent code questions.
TraceMap can help teams inspect rule-backed repository evidence when review or incident follow-up needs a map of source surfaces, endpoints, packages, SQL/config surfaces, static paths, coverage labels, and limitations.
Public claim level: concept. This page describes a bounded workflow idea for using static evidence during review or incident follow-up. It does not claim runtime behavior, production traffic, deployment state, endpoint performance, production dependency understanding, P1 root cause, release safety, release approval, or AI impact analysis.
Use case
The useful question is where to inspect next, not what happened in production.
During reviewTraceMap can point to changed contracts, static endpoint routes, service/code paths, package surfaces, SQL/config surfaces, rule IDs, evidence tiers, and gaps.
During follow-upTeams can use the same packet to ask better code questions after an event, while telemetry, logs, traces, tests, and humans handle runtime proof.
Under uncertaintyCoverage labels and limitations stay visible so partial analysis remains useful without becoming a clean bill of health.
Across handoffManagers, reviewers, architects, and engineers can inspect the same source paths and status framing without rebuilding the story from chat or memory.
Reader questions
Different roles can start from the same evidence packet.
Reviewers
Which rule ID, evidence tier, file span, supporting ID, coverage label, and limitation explains why this finding needs human attention?
Managers
What is known, what is partial, what must stay local, and which conclusion still needs logs, telemetry, tests, ownership, or release review?
Architects
Which static dependencies, repeated surfaces, adapter gaps, and cross-service paths suggest coupling that deserves a deeper design conversation?
What it can orient
Keep the trail concrete, named, and inspectable.
contractsChanged DTOs, fields, methods, schemas, and public surfaces that appear in the scanned commit.endpointsServer-declared routes or client-called endpoints when the adapter can extract them, with coverage and limitations attached.pathsBounded static source-to-surface paths and reverse paths, not runtime traces or reachability proof.surfacesPackages, SQL surfaces, config surfaces, project metadata, and integration facts that help reviewers narrow inspection.gapsAnalysis gaps, fallback behavior, reduced coverage, and unavailable evidence that prevent overclaiming.Non-claims
This concept deliberately stops before runtime conclusions.
- TraceMap does not prove runtime behavior, production traffic, deployment state, endpoint performance, or production dependency understanding.
- TraceMap does not find or prove P1 root cause, replace incident response, or replace logs, traces, telemetry, tests, or human ownership.
- TraceMap does not validate a release, approve a deployment, or turn partial static evidence into a release-safety decision.
- TraceMap site copy should not describe the scanner or reducer as AI impact analysis.
Artifact safety
Share public-safe summaries, not raw local internals.
Safe to discussRule IDs, evidence tiers, coverage labels, relative public-demo paths, generated report families, counts, limitations, and high-level status framing.
Keep localRaw source snippets, raw SQL, config values, secrets, local absolute paths, raw repo remotes, raw facts, SQLite files, combined SQLite files, generated scan directories, analyzer logs, and private sample identities.
Keep adjacentEvery conclusion should stay next to its rule/status frame, coverage label, proof path, and limitation so future readers can audit it.
Proof path