# DenQAI: workspace validation protocol

File-specific companion · 2026-09-10

## Purpose

Is there a recurring user need that the current local project file cannot solve?

**Who:** Product lead and research/privacy reviewers

**Records:** Observed local workflow attempts; specific collaboration failures; proposed service/data requirements; current product boundaries.

## Complete the file

1. Read Current experiment and Jobs being tested, keeping the local workflow as the initial case.
2. Record evidence of a cloud need from actual repeated tasks rather than enthusiasm alone.
3. Assess every future workspace launch gate before defining a minimum persistent release.

## Definitions

- **Local project file:** A user-controlled export kept on the user’s device.
- **Cloud need:** An evidenced recurring job requiring capabilities beyond the current local file.
- **Launch gate:** A required product, security, governance, or operational condition before intake.

## Fictional example

Fictional example: Two reviewers cannot reconcile versions of a coded local file; document the specific handoff failure and test whether a clearer export process resolves it.

## Review and next action

Document one verified unmet job and its required data/authority before proposing new infrastructure.

This design protocol does not create accounts, uploads, shared storage, consent, or permission to collect project files.

[Related DenQAI guide](https://denqai.com/workspace)

## AI coach prompt

Help me use DenQAI’s workspace validation protocol. My question is: Is there a recurring user need that the current local project file cannot solve? Explain these terms in plain language: Local project file, Cloud need, Launch gate. Ask one question at a time about the required records: Observed local workflow attempts; specific collaboration failures; proposed service/data requirements; current product boundaries. Walk through the supplied fictional example before asking me for inputs. Treat every missing value as unknown, not zero. Do not invent source records, contract terms, legal conclusions, or clinical facts. Use only permitted fictional or aggregate, non-identifying information. Follow this boundary: This design protocol does not create accounts, uploads, shared storage, consent, or permission to collect project files. End with the missing evidence and this next step: Document one verified unmet job and its required data/authority before proposing new infrastructure.

## AI review prompt

Review my permitted fictional or aggregate draft of DenQAI’s workspace validation protocol against the file instructions. Check each required field and period, units, evidence locator, assumptions, arithmetic where formulas are actually supplied, and unresolved contradictions. Check the sequence: Read Current experiment and Jobs being tested, keeping the local workflow as the initial case. Record evidence of a cloud need from actual repeated tasks rather than enthusiasm alone. Assess every future workspace launch gate before defining a minimum persistent release. Separate facts from assumptions and missing records. Do not supply unsupported numbers or make a professional decision for me. Apply this limitation: This design protocol does not create accounts, uploads, shared storage, consent, or permission to collect project files. Return corrections, questions for the responsible reviewer, and the next action.