This document addresses recent feedback and updates to the IdeaScore project plan. It should be considered an addendum to the existing planning documents.

Based on feedback, we're adopting a more evolutionary approach to the project's architecture:

1. Start Simple

   • Begin with all code in a single handler.tsx file
   • Avoid premature organization and splitting
   • Focus on functionality over structure initially

2. Refactor Based on Need

   • Use file size as a practical metric (~300-400 lines may indicate need to split)
   • Let functional boundaries guide separation when needed
   • Extract code into new files only when sections become unwieldy
   • Test thoroughly after each refactoring

3. Guidelines Instead of Rigid Points

   • No predefined refactoring checkpoints
   • Include "evaluate code organization" as part of each checkpoint review
   • Make architectural decisions based on actual needs, not predicted ones
   • Focus on maintainability and readability

This approach supersedes the more complex initial structure mentioned in some planning documents. We'll let the project grow organically and adapt as needed.

We're adding a new checkpoint early in Phase 1:

Checkpoint 1.3: Splash Page for Non-Logged-In Users

• Create simple, informative landing page for new users
• Include login button and basic information about the app
• Design with ability to evolve and showcase features as they're added
• Ensure responsive design for all devices

Note: Existing checkpoints will shift accordingly (current 1.3 becomes 1.4, etc.)

We're adding consideration for a collaborative feature in a later phase:

Checkpoint 6.3: Collaborative Idea Rating

• Allow multiple users to rate the same idea
• Each user can provide their own effort and payoff scores
• Display both individual and aggregate ratings
• Include comparison views between different user ratings
• Add commenting functionality for discussion

This will require schema updates to support many-to-many relationships between users and ideas.

While formal checkpoints provide structure, the actual development process will be more fluid:

1. Flexible Prioritization

   • Use the checkpoint system as a guideline rather than a rigid plan
   • Reprioritize based on ongoing feedback and emerging needs
   • Allow for easy addition of new features or changes in direction

2. Visual Progress Tracking

   • Continue using checkbox lists in project status documents
   • Consider developing a simple UI component for checkpoint tracking in a later phase
   • Potentially "dogfood" our own application by using it to track development priorities

3. Incremental Reviews

   • Maintain the approval process between checkpoints
   • Keep checkpoints small and achievable
   • Provide ongoing feedback rather than just at formal review points

The initial implementation will:

• Use a single handler.tsx file
• Focus on core functionality over architecture
• Maintain data isolation through naming conventions
• Keep UI components inline until refactoring is needed

Given the meta nature of this app (prioritizing ideas to build an app for prioritizing ideas), we'll:

• Focus on the core scoring and ratio calculation first
• Defer more complex features until the basics are solid
• Use our own experience building the app to inform the user experience

As we begin implementation, keep in mind:

1. When does the complexity justify splitting into multiple files?
2. What functional boundaries make the most sense for eventual separation?
3. How can we balance immediate progress with maintainable code?
4. What metrics should we track to evaluate our architectural decisions?

This document serves as an update to our project approach based on recent feedback and supersedes conflicting information in earlier planning documents.