@jwikman/bc-code-intelligence-mcp 1.5.7-dev.1

package/embedded-knowledge/domains/parker-pragmatic/proposal-workflows/creating-effective-proposals.md

@@ -0,0 +1,583 @@
+---
+title: "Creating Effective AI Proposals"
+domain: "ai-collaboration"
+bc_versions: "14+"
+difficulty: intermediate
+tags: ["ai-assistance", "proposal-based", "verification", "trust-building"]
+related_topics:
+  - "../trust-building/working-with-ai-skeptics.md"
+  - "../../shared/ai-assistance/prompt-engineering.md"
+applies_to:
+  - "AI-Assisted Development"
+  - "Collaborative Workflows"
+last_updated: "2025-11-01"
+---
+
+# Creating Effective AI Proposals
+
+## Overview
+
+AI proposals are temporary, reviewable implementation examples that allow developers to evaluate suggested changes before applying them. This approach builds trust by giving developers complete control while leveraging AI capabilities.
+
+## Why Proposal-Based Development?
+
+### Traditional AI Approach (Direct Changes)
+```
+AI: "I'll fix that performance issue for you"
+[Makes changes directly to code]
+Developer: "Wait, what did you change? Why?"
+```
+
+**Problems:**
+- No chance to review before change
+- Limited understanding of reasoning
+- Trust-or-reject binary choice
+- Hard to learn from AI decisions
+
+### Proposal-Based Approach
+```
+AI: "I've identified a performance issue. Let me create a proposal showing
+     how SetCurrentKey could help. I'll put it in a temporary folder so
+     you can review it with Dean (performance specialist) before deciding."
+[Creates reviewable proposal]
+Developer: "I can see exactly what would change and why"
+```
+
+**Benefits:**
+- ✅ Review before commitment
+- ✅ Understand reasoning
+- ✅ Validate with specialists
+- ✅ Learn from examples
+- ✅ Maintain full control
+
+## Proposal Structure
+
+### Directory Layout
+```
+.parker-proposals/
+  └── [YYYY-MM-DD]-[description]/
+      ├── README.md                 # Overview, reasoning, cleanup
+      ├── proposed-solution/        # New implementation
+      ├── current-approach/         # Existing code (for comparison)
+      ├── alternatives/             # Other options considered
+      ├── comparison.md             # Side-by-side analysis
+      └── specialist-review.md      # Notes for reviewers
+```
+
+### Essential README Components
+
+#### 1. Clear Identification
+```markdown
+# 🚧 TEMPORARY PROPOSAL - [Description]
+
+**Created:** [Date] by Parker Pragmatic
+**Status:** PENDING REVIEW
+**Cleanup:** Delete entire directory after decision
+```
+
+#### 2. Problem Statement
+```markdown
+## Problem Being Solved
+Clear description of what issue this addresses or what feature it enables.
+Include observed symptoms and impact.
+```
+
+#### 3. AI Reasoning
+```markdown
+## Why This Approach?
+
+**Analysis:**
+- Current situation: [what's happening now]
+- Root cause: [why it's problematic]
+- Proposed solution: [how this addresses it]
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+1. Option A: [description] - Why not chosen
+2. Option B: [description] - Why not chosen
+3. Option C (Proposed): [description] - Why recommended
+```
+
+#### 4. Confidence Level
+```markdown
+## AI Confidence Level
+
+**Rating:** Medium-High ✅
+
+**High Confidence On:**
+- This is a well-established BC pattern
+- Similar solutions validated in BC docs
+- Clear performance benefit expected
+
+**Lower Confidence On:**
+- Specific key selection for your data volume
+- Impact on related custom pages
+- Integration with existing caching
+
+**Recommendation:** Dean (performance) review before applying
+```
+
+#### 5. Implementation Details
+```markdown
+## Changes Proposed
+
+### Files Added/Modified
+- `[Path]`: [Description of changes]
+
+### Key Decisions
+- **SetCurrentKey(Name)**: Chosen over No for filtering efficiency
+- **FindFirst vs FindSet**: Single result use case
+- **Error handling**: Added validation for empty results
+
+### BC Version Notes
+- Requires BC 14+ for [specific feature]
+- Tested against BC 18-23
+```
+
+#### 6. Specialist Review
+```markdown
+## Specialist Review Needed
+
+- [ ] **Dean Debug** - Performance validation
+  - Verify key selection for 50K+ records
+  - Confirm expected time improvement
+  
+- [ ] **Roger Reviewer** - Code quality
+  - Check adherence to team standards
+  - Validate error handling approach
+```
+
+#### 7. Testing Guidance
+```markdown
+## Testing Recommendations
+
+**Before Applying:**
+1. Review code changes in `proposed-solution/`
+2. Compare with `current-approach/`
+3. Read specialist feedback in `specialist-review.md`
+
+**After Applying (if accepted):**
+1. Compile and verify no errors
+2. Test with >10K customer records
+3. Measure search performance (before/after)
+4. Verify edge cases (empty search, special characters)
+
+**Performance Baseline:**
+- Current: 3-4 seconds for search
+- Expected: <1 second
+- Measurement: Use BC telemetry or stopwatch
+```
+
+#### 8. Cleanup Instructions
+```markdown
+## Cleanup Instructions
+
+**After Decision:**
+Delete this entire proposal directory:
+
+```powershell
+Remove-Item -Recurse -Force .parker-proposals/2025-11-01-customer-search/
+```
+
+Or if using bash:
+```bash
+rm -rf .parker-proposals/2025-11-01-customer-search/
+```
+
+**Important:** Always clean up proposals after decision to avoid clutter.
+```
+
+## Proposal Quality Guidelines
+
+### ✅ Good Proposals
+
+**Complete Working Example:**
+```al
+// ❌ Don't provide fragments
+SetCurrentKey(Name);
+// ... rest of code ...
+
+// ✅ Provide complete context
+procedure OptimizedCustomerSearch(SearchText: Text[100]): Record Customer
+var
+    Customer: Record Customer;
+begin
+    Customer.Reset();
+    Customer.SetCurrentKey(Name);  // Why: Optimize search on Name field
+    Customer.SetRange(Name, SearchText);  // Why: Limit to relevant records
+    
+    if Customer.FindFirst() then
+        exit(Customer);
+    
+    Error('Customer not found: %1', SearchText);
+end;
+```
+
+**Clear Reasoning:**
+```markdown
+## Why SetCurrentKey(Name)?
+
+**Analysis:**
+- Current code iterates ALL 50K+ customer records
+- Search is on Name field (not primary key)
+- No existing index on Name in base table
+
+**Solution:**
+- SetCurrentKey tells BC to use Name-based index
+- Dramatically reduces records scanned
+- Proven pattern in BC documentation
+
+**Trade-off:**
+- Slightly more memory during search
+- Negligible for this use case
+```
+
+**Honest Limitations:**
+```markdown
+## What I'm Not Sure About
+
+**Database Tier:**
+- I don't know your actual data volume
+- Key selection might differ if <5K vs >100K records
+
+**Integration:**
+- Uncertain if other pages use same search pattern
+- May need similar optimization elsewhere
+
+**Recommendation:**
+Ask Dean to validate key strategy for your specific environment.
+```
+
+### ❌ Poor Proposals
+
+**Vague or Incomplete:**
+```markdown
+# Fix Performance Issue
+
+Change the code to be faster.
+
+[Provides code snippet without context]
+
+Should work!
+```
+
+**Over-Confident:**
+```markdown
+# Perfect Solution
+
+This is definitely the right approach. Just apply it.
+No review needed - AI knows best!
+```
+
+**No Cleanup Plan:**
+```markdown
+# Proposal
+
+[Proposal content but no cleanup instructions or temporary marking]
+```
+
+## Example Complete Proposal
+
+### README.md
+```markdown
+# 🚧 TEMPORARY PROPOSAL - Customer Search Performance Optimization
+
+**Created:** 2025-11-01 by Parker Pragmatic
+**Status:** PENDING REVIEW → SPECIALIST REVIEW → READY FOR DECISION
+**Cleanup:** Delete entire directory after decision
+
+## Problem Being Solved
+
+**Observed Issue:**
+Customer search on Sales Order page takes 3-4 seconds, impacting user productivity.
+
+**Root Cause:**
+Current implementation iterates all Customer records without filtering or indexing,
+scanning 50K+ records for each search.
+
+**Business Impact:**
+- Sales team reports frustration with search delays
+- ~20 searches per user per day = 60-80 seconds wasted
+- Scales poorly as customer base grows
+
+---
+
+## Proposed Solution
+
+**Approach:** Add SetCurrentKey and SetRange filtering to limit record iteration
+
+**Changes:**
+- SetCurrentKey(Name) before search
+- SetRange on search criteria
+- FindFirst instead of FindSet (single result)
+
+**Expected Outcome:**
+- Search time: <1 second (vs current 3-4 seconds)
+- Scalable to 100K+ customers
+- No functional changes to search behavior
+
+---
+
+## AI Reasoning
+
+**Why This Approach?**
+
+**Analysis:**
+1. **Current Code Pattern:**
+   ```al
+   Customer.Reset();
+   if Customer.FindSet() then
+       repeat
+           if Customer.Name.Contains(SearchText) then
+               exit(Customer);
+       until Customer.Next() = 0;
+   ```
+   - Iterates ALL records
+   - String comparison in loop
+   - No database-level filtering
+
+2. **Proposed Pattern:**
+   ```al
+   Customer.Reset();
+   Customer.SetCurrentKey(Name);
+   Customer.SetRange(Name, SearchText);
+   if Customer.FindFirst() then
+       exit(Customer);
+   ```
+   - Database filters before retrieval
+   - Index-based lookup
+   - Returns immediately on match
+
+**Alternatives Considered:**
+- ❌ Caching: Adds complexity, memory overhead, cache invalidation issues
+- ❌ Pagination: Requires UX changes, doesn't solve underlying issue
+- ✅ Indexing + Filtering: Standard BC pattern, minimal code change
+
+---
+
+## AI Confidence Level
+
+**Rating:** Medium-High ✅
+
+**High Confidence:**
+- ✅ SetCurrentKey/SetRange is proven BC optimization pattern
+- ✅ Clearly addresses root cause (full table scan)
+- ✅ Minimal risk - no logic changes, only performance
+
+**Medium Confidence:**
+- ⚠️ Specific key selection (Name vs Name,No)
+- ⚠️ Exact performance gain (depends on data distribution)
+- ⚠️ Impact on related pages using same search
+
+**Recommendation:**
+- **Dean Debug**: Validate key strategy and performance expectations
+- **Roger Reviewer**: Verify code quality and standards compliance
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Details
+
+### Files in Proposal
+- `proposed-solution/CustomerSearch.al` - Optimized version
+- `current-approach/CustomerSearch.al` - Your existing code
+- `comparison.md` - Side-by-side with annotations
+
+### Key Decisions
+
+**1. SetCurrentKey(Name)**
+- **Why:** Primary search field
+- **Alternative:** SetCurrentKey(Name, No) for secondary sort
+- **Chosen:** Name only - simpler, sufficient for single result
+
+**2. FindFirst vs FindSet**
+- **Why:** Only need first match
+- **Alternative:** FindSet with repeat loop
+- **Chosen:** FindFirst - more efficient for single result
+
+**3. Error Handling**
+- **Why:** Original had no error case
+- **Added:** Clear error message if not found
+- **Alternative:** Return blank record
+
+### BC Version Compatibility
+- **Requires:** BC 14+ (SetCurrentKey/SetRange are foundational)
+- **Tested:** BC 18, 20, 23
+- **Notes:** No version-specific features used
+
+---
+
+## Specialist Review
+
+### Status: ✅ COMPLETE
+
+#### Dean Debug (Performance) ✅
+**Review Date:** 2025-11-01
+**Status:** Approved with enhancements
+
+**Feedback:**
+- ✅ SetCurrentKey approach correct
+- 💡 **Enhancement:** Also add APPLICATIONAREA property for telemetry
+- 📋 **Testing:** Verify with realistic data (50K+), measure actual improvement
+- ⚠️ **Consideration:** Check if Name field has SQL index in deployed environment
+
+**Actions Taken:**
+- Added APPLICATIONAREA property
+- Enhanced testing checklist with telemetry validation
+- Added note about SQL index verification
+
+#### Roger Reviewer (Code Quality) ✅
+**Review Date:** 2025-11-01
+**Status:** Approved
+
+**Feedback:**
+- ✅ Code follows BC best practices
+- ✅ Error handling appropriate
+- 💡 **Enhancement:** Add XML documentation comment
+- ✅ Naming conventions correct
+
+**Actions Taken:**
+- Added comprehensive XML doc comment
+- Verified naming against team standards
+
+---
+
+## Testing Recommendations
+
+### Before Applying
+
+**1. Review Code**
+- [ ] Read `proposed-solution/CustomerSearch.al`
+- [ ] Compare with `current-approach/CustomerSearch.al`
+- [ ] Review specialist feedback above
+- [ ] Understand each change and why
+
+**2. Understand Trade-offs**
+- [ ] Slightly more memory during search (negligible)
+- [ ] Requires Name field to have SQL index (check deployment)
+- [ ] No functional changes to search behavior
+
+### After Applying (If Accepted)
+
+**1. Compilation**
+- [ ] Code compiles without errors
+- [ ] No warnings introduced
+- [ ] Dependencies resolve correctly
+
+**2. Functional Testing**
+- [ ] Search with exact match
+- [ ] Search with partial match
+- [ ] Search with no match (error handling)
+- [ ] Search with special characters
+- [ ] Empty search text
+
+**3. Performance Testing**
+- [ ] Baseline measurement (current code)
+- [ ] New implementation measurement
+- [ ] Compare results (expect <1 second)
+- [ ] Test with >10K records
+- [ ] Test with >50K records
+
+**4. Integration Testing**
+- [ ] Verify other pages using Customer search
+- [ ] Check if similar optimization needed elsewhere
+- [ ] Validate no regressions in related functionality
+
+**5. Telemetry Validation**
+- [ ] Confirm APPLICATIONAREA logging
+- [ ] Monitor actual usage patterns
+- [ ] Track performance improvements in production
+
+---
+
+## Cleanup Instructions
+
+**After You've Made Your Decision:**
+
+This proposal directory is TEMPORARY and must be removed.
+
+### PowerShell
+```powershell
+Remove-Item -Recurse -Force .parker-proposals/2025-11-01-customer-search-optimization/
+```
+
+### Bash/WSL
+```bash
+rm -rf .parker-proposals/2025-11-01-customer-search-optimization/
+```
+
+### Manual
+Delete the entire directory:
+`.parker-proposals/2025-11-01-customer-search-optimization/`
+
+**Important:** 
+- Always clean up after decision (accept or reject)
+- Don't leave abandoned proposals
+- Keeps workspace clean and focused
+
+---
+
+## Your Decision Options
+
+**1️⃣ Accept as Proposed** ✅ Recommended
+- Specialist-validated approach
+- Clear performance benefit
+- Low risk implementation
+- Parker will help with application
+
+**2️⃣ Modify Before Accepting**
+- What would you like changed?
+- Parker can revise proposal
+
+**3️⃣ Reject / Defer**
+- That's totally fine!
+- Parker will clean up proposal
+- Happy to explore alternatives
+
+**What would you like to do?**
+
+---
+
+*Parker will guide you through applying your decision and cleaning up this proposal.*
+```
+
+## Best Practices
+
+### DO ✅
+- Create complete working examples
+- Explain reasoning transparently
+- Be honest about uncertainty
+- Include specialist review
+- Provide clear cleanup instructions
+- Mark proposals as TEMPORARY
+- Use consistent directory structure
+- Test proposals before presenting
+
+### DON'T ❌
+- Make direct code changes without proposals
+- Over-promise AI certainty
+- Skip specialist review for complex changes
+- Leave abandoned proposals
+- Provide incomplete code snippets
+- Hide AI limitations
+- Rush the review process
+
+## Common Questions
+
+**Q: How long should proposals stay in the workspace?**
+A: Only until the developer makes a decision (minutes to hours, not days). Clean up immediately after.
+
+**Q: What if the developer wants to modify the proposal?**
+A: Great! That's learning. Update the proposal based on their feedback, then re-review.
+
+**Q: Do all changes need proposals?**
+A: No - trivial fixes (typos, formatting) don't need proposals. Use judgment: if it needs explanation, it probably needs a proposal.
+
+**Q: What if specialists disagree?**
+A: Document both perspectives, explain trade-offs, and let the developer decide.
+
+---
+
+## See Also
+
+- [Working with AI-Skeptical Developers](../trust-building/working-with-ai-skeptics.md)
+- [Proposal-Review Workflow](../../../methodologies/workflows/proposal-review-workflow.md)
+- [Specialist Coordination](../specialist-coordination/multi-specialist-reviews.md)