project-iris 0.0.1

package/src/iris_bundle/frameworks/iris-core/memory-bank/research/vibe-to-production-academic-research.md

@@ -0,0 +1,578 @@
+# Vibe-Coded Prototype to Production: Academic Research Deep Dive
+
+> **Research Date**: 2025-12-09
+> **Author**: irismd research
+> **Method**: Sequential Thinking Analysis with Web Search (10 steps)
+> **Focus**: Academic papers, benchmarks, and formal methods for prototype-to-production transformation
+
+---
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+This research addresses the core challenge for iris.md: **How to transform vibe-coded prototypes into production-quality software while preserving domain knowledge, without the risk of AI regeneration drift.**
+
+### The Core Problem
+
+When converting vibe-coded prototypes to AI-DLC specifications:
+
+1. **Non-determinism Risk**: Studies show 75% variance in LLM code generation outputs
+2. **Knowledge Preservation**: Tech stack, UX flows, domain objects, and business logic must transfer
+3. **Regeneration Drift**: Specs regenerated from different models/tools may produce fundamentally different code
+4. **Brownfield Challenge**: Existing codebases need incremental adoption, not greenfield rewrites
+
+### Key Finding
+
+Academic research validates this concern: **"Setting temperature to 0 does not guarantee determinism in code generation"** (Ouyang et al., 2024). The solution requires **anchoring mechanisms** beyond specifications alone.
+
+---
+
+## 5 Recommended Options
+
+### Option 1: Specification-First with Symbolic Anchoring
+
+**Approach**: Extract formal specifications from vibe-coded prototypes using LLMs, then use **symbolic execution** to create deterministic behavioral anchors.
+
+**Academic Foundation**:
+
+- **AutoSpec** (arXiv:2404.00762) achieves 79% automated verification through specification synthesis
+- **Symbolic Clustering** (arXiv:2502.11620) enables precise functional equivalence checking
+- **SpecRover/SpecGen** (arXiv:2408.02232, arXiv:2401.08807) for code intent extraction
+
+**How It Works**:
+
+```text
+Vibe-Coded Prototype
+        ↓
+[1] LLM extracts specifications (AutoSpec approach)
+        ↓
+[2] Symbolic execution generates behavioral traces
+        ↓
+[3] Traces become "golden anchors" for regeneration
+        ↓
+[4] Any regenerated code must pass symbolic equivalence check
+        ↓
+Production Code (verified equivalent)
+```text
+
+**Pros**:
+
+- Mathematically verifiable equivalence
+- Addresses non-determinism directly
+- Works for "ditch prototype" path
+
+**Cons**:
+
+- Symbolic execution has scalability limits
+- May not capture all behavioral nuances
+- Requires formal methods expertise
+
+**Best For**: Critical systems where behavioral equivalence must be provable
+
+---
+
+### Option 2: Test-Contract Driven Migration (Golden Test Anchoring)
+
+**Approach**: Generate comprehensive "golden tests" from the running prototype that serve as behavioral contracts. Any regenerated code must pass all golden tests.
+
+**Academic Foundation**:
+
+- **FreshBrew** (arXiv:2510.04852) validates migrations through 3 sequential gates: compilation → original tests pass → coverage preservation
+- **Test-Driven Development for Code Generation** (arXiv:2402.13521) - TDD principles for LLM verification
+- **HyClone** (arXiv:2508.01357) combines LLM understanding with execution-based validation
+
+**How It Works**:
+
+```text
+Vibe-Coded Prototype
+        ↓
+[1] Dynamic analysis captures runtime behaviors (InspectCoder approach)
+        ↓
+[2] Generate exhaustive golden test suite from actual execution
+        ↓
+[3] Extract specifications as documentation (not primary anchor)
+        ↓
+[4] Regenerate code from specs
+        ↓
+[5] Validate against golden tests (3-gate validation)
+        ↓
+Production Code (behaviorally verified)
+```text
+
+**FreshBrew 3-Gate Validation**:
+
+1. **Gate 1**: Successful compilation
+2. **Gate 2**: Pass all original tests
+3. **Gate 3**: Test coverage within 5% of baseline
+
+**Pros**:
+
+- Practical and executable validation
+- Works across different AI models/tools
+- Captures actual runtime behavior
+- Supports "build on prototype" path
+
+**Cons**:
+
+- Test coverage may miss edge cases
+- Tests capture "what is" not "what should be"
+- May preserve bugs from prototype
+
+**Best For**: Teams wanting practical validation with existing testing infrastructure
+
+---
+
+### Option 3: Hybrid Strangler Fig with AI Validation
+
+**Approach**: Keep the vibe-coded prototype running while incrementally replacing components with spec-driven modules, using **semantic clone detection** to ensure functional equivalence.
+
+**Academic Foundation**:
+
+- **Strangler Fig Pattern** (AWS, Microsoft architecture patterns)
+- **HyClone** (arXiv:2508.01357) - LLM + execution validation for semantic clone detection
+- **Legacy Code Modernization** (arXiv:2411.14971, arXiv:2407.04017)
+- **Migrating Code at Scale** (arXiv:2504.09691) - Google's approach with TRANSAGENT
+
+**How It Works**:
+
+```text
+Vibe-Coded Prototype (Running in Production)
+        ↓
+[1] Identify bounded context for migration
+        ↓
+[2] Extract specs for that component only
+        ↓
+[3] Generate new implementation from specs
+        ↓
+[4] Run both implementations in parallel (shadow mode)
+        ↓
+[5] Semantic clone detection validates equivalence
+        ↓
+[6] Route traffic to new implementation
+        ↓
+[7] Repeat for next component
+        ↓
+Production (Incrementally Migrated)
+```text
+
+**Key Insight from Google Paper**:
+> "UniTrans uses test-cases as a benchmark and to guide code translation"
+
+**Pros**:
+
+- Zero downtime migration
+- Rollback capability at any point
+- Incremental risk management
+- Ideal for brownfield projects
+
+**Cons**:
+
+- Longer migration timeline
+- Operational complexity (running two systems)
+- May never complete migration
+
+**Best For**: Production systems that cannot afford downtime or risk
+
+---
+
+### Option 4: Knowledge Graph Preservation Architecture
+
+**Approach**: Build a **semantic knowledge graph** of domain objects, business logic flows, and UX patterns from the vibe-coded prototype. Use this graph as a generation anchor rather than text specifications.
+
+**Academic Foundation**:
+
+- **RepoGraph** - Repository-level code graph for AI software engineering
+- **RefExpo** (arXiv:2407.02620) - Dependency graph extraction
+- **CodeKGC** (arXiv:2304.09048) - Knowledge graph construction from code
+- **Knowledge-Based Multi-Agent Framework** (arXiv:2503.20536) for architecture design
+
+**How It Works**:
+
+```text
+Vibe-Coded Prototype
+        ↓
+[1] Static analysis extracts code structure (RefExpo)
+        ↓
+[2] Build knowledge graph of:
+    - Domain entities & relationships
+    - Business logic flows
+    - UX interaction patterns
+    - API contracts
+    - Data schemas
+        ↓
+[3] Graph becomes "domain anchor" (not just text specs)
+        ↓
+[4] Generate specs FROM the graph (structured, not free-form)
+        ↓
+[5] Regenerate code with graph as context injection
+        ↓
+[6] Validate regenerated code against graph constraints
+        ↓
+Production Code (Graph-Anchored)
+```text
+
+**Key Insight from RefExpo**:
+> "Nodes can be methods, classes, files, modules. Logical dependencies are identified by how each component references others."
+
+**Pros**:
+
+- Captures structural relationships, not just behavior
+- Graph provides deterministic anchoring
+- Supports both "ditch" and "build on" paths
+- Natural fit for DDD-based AI-DLC
+
+**Cons**:
+
+- Requires graph database infrastructure
+- Complex implementation
+- May miss dynamic behaviors
+
+**Best For**: Complex domain-driven projects with rich entity relationships
+
+---
+
+### Option 5: Multi-Agent Orchestrated Transformation (MAOT)
+
+**Approach**: Use a **specialized multi-agent system** where different agents handle extraction, specification, generation, and validation—with explicit human validation gates at each stage.
+
+**Academic Foundation**:
+
+- **Self-Organized Agents (SoA)** (arXiv:2404.02183) - Scalable multi-agent code generation
+- **Codelevate** (arXiv:2511.07257) - Bridging prototype-production gap with MASA
+- **LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems for SE** (arXiv:2404.04834) - Survey of approaches
+- **Seeking Specifications** (arXiv:2504.21061) - LLMs distinguish implemented vs intended behavior
+
+**How It Works**:
+
+```text
+Vibe-Coded Prototype
+        ↓
+[Extractor Agent]
+- Analyzes codebase structure
+- Identifies domain boundaries
+- Extracts behavioral patterns
+        ↓
+[Specification Agent]
+- Generates AI-DLC specs from extraction
+- Distinguishes implemented vs intended (per arXiv:2504.21061)
+- Human validates/modifies specs
+        ↓
+[Generator Agent]
+- Produces new implementation from specs
+- Multiple generation attempts with diversity
+        ↓
+[Validator Agent]
+- Runs golden test suites
+- Performs semantic equivalence checks
+- Human validates final output
+        ↓
+[Arbiter Agent]
+- Selects best generation
+- Documents deviations
+- Coordinates rollback if needed
+        ↓
+Production Code (Multi-Validated)
+```text
+
+**Key Insight from Codelevate**:
+> "Structured multi-agent frameworks emphasize role specialization and modularity, ensuring each agent operates with clear and coordinated purpose."
+
+**Key Insight from "Seeking Specifications"**:
+> "LLMs with advanced reasoning capabilities were resilient against the implementation-versus-intent problem—almost always able to identify bugs and target intended behavior."
+
+**Pros**:
+
+- Multiple validation layers
+- Explicit human-AI collaboration points
+- Scales with Self-Organized Agents approach
+- Natural fit for irismd multi-agent architecture
+
+**Cons**:
+
+- Highest implementation complexity
+- Coordination overhead
+- Requires robust agent orchestration
+
+**Best For**: Enterprise-scale transformations requiring auditability and governance
+
+---
+
+## Comparison Matrix
+
+| Aspect | Option 1: Symbolic | Option 2: Test-Contract | Option 3: Strangler | Option 4: Knowledge Graph | Option 5: Multi-Agent |
+|--------|-------------------|------------------------|---------------------|--------------------------|----------------------|
+| **Primary Anchor** | Symbolic traces | Golden tests | Running system | Semantic graph | Multi-layer validation |
+| **Non-determinism Solution** | Mathematical equivalence | Behavioral tests | A/B comparison | Graph constraints | Consensus across agents |
+| **Brownfield Support** | Limited | Moderate | **Excellent** | Good | Good |
+| **"Ditch Prototype" Path** | **Excellent** | Good | Poor | **Excellent** | **Excellent** |
+| **"Build On" Path** | Poor | **Excellent** | **Excellent** | Good | Good |
+| **Implementation Complexity** | High | Low | Medium | High | Very High |
+| **Validation Rigor** | **Highest** | High | High | Medium | **Highest** |
+| **Time to Value** | Long | **Short** | Medium | Long | Long |
+| **AI-DLC Alignment** | High | High | Medium | **Highest** | **Highest** |
+
+---
+
+## The Non-Determinism Problem: Deep Dive
+
+### Evidence from Research
+
+**"An Empirical Study of the Non-determinism of ChatGPT in Code Generation"** (arXiv:2308.02828, ACM TOSEM 2024)
+
+Key findings:
+
+- **75.76%** of CodeContests tasks produced different outputs across requests
+- **51.00%** variance on APPS benchmark
+- **47.56%** variance on HumanEval
+- **Setting temperature=0 does NOT guarantee determinism**
+- cuDNN benchmarking feature introduces hardware-level non-determinism
+
+### Implications for iris.md
+
+1. **Specs alone are insufficient** - Text specifications will be interpreted differently by different models
+2. **Need deterministic anchors** - Tests, traces, or graphs that constrain regeneration
+3. **Model versioning matters** - Same prompt on model version N vs N+1 produces different code
+4. **Tool-agnostic approach required** - Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot may all generate differently
+
+### Mitigation Strategies from Research
+
+| Strategy | Source | Effectiveness |
+|----------|--------|---------------|
+| Greedy decoding (T=0) | arXiv:2511.07585 | Partial - not sufficient alone |
+| Symbolic clustering | arXiv:2502.11620 | High - precise functional equivalence |
+| Execution-based validation | arXiv:2508.01357 | High - validates actual behavior |
+| RAG with code consistency | arXiv:2502.00611 | Medium - improves consistency |
+| Consensus generation | arXiv:2307.01898 | High - 100% consensus possible with beam search |
+
+---
+
+## Brownfield Integration: Special Considerations
+
+### Research Insights
+
+**"Contemporary Software Modernization: Perspectives and Challenges"** (arXiv:2407.04017)
+
+> "When the legacy system has a high business value, it is a candidate for modernization by re-engineering or migration, independently of its internal quality."
+
+**Key challenges for brownfield AI-DLC adoption**:
+
+1. Understanding existing architecture without documentation
+2. Preserving knowledge embedded in legacy code
+3. Incremental adoption without disrupting operations
+4. Managing technical debt during transformation
+
+### Recommended Approach for Brownfield
+
+Combine **Option 3 (Strangler)** with **Option 2 (Test-Contract)**:
+
+1. Generate golden tests from running brownfield system
+2. Identify bounded context for first migration
+3. Extract specs for that context
+4. Generate new implementation
+5. Validate with golden tests
+6. Shadow deploy and compare
+7. Cut over when validated
+8. Repeat for next context
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Recommendation for iris.md
+
+### Primary Approach: Hybrid (Options 2 + 5)
+
+**Test-Contract Driven with Multi-Agent Orchestration**
+
+```text
+iris.md Architecture
+├── Extraction Layer
+│   ├── Code Analyzer Agent
+│   ├── Test Generator Agent
+│   └── Knowledge Extractor Agent
+│
+├── Specification Layer
+│   ├── Spec Generator Agent
+│   ├── Intent Synthesizer Agent
+│   └── Human Validation Gate
+│
+├── Generation Layer
+│   ├── Multi-Model Generator (Claude, GPT, Gemini)
+│   ├── Diversity Sampler
+│   └── Best-of-N Selector
+│
+├── Validation Layer
+│   ├── Golden Test Runner
+│   ├── Semantic Equivalence Checker
+│   └── Human Validation Gate
+│
+└── Migration Layer
+    ├── Strangler Coordinator (for brownfield)
+    ├── Shadow Deployer
+    └── Cutover Manager
+```text
+
+### User Choice Points
+
+1. **Path Selection**:
+   - "Ditch prototype, regenerate from specs" → Full extraction + generation
+   - "Build on prototype" → Incremental strangler approach
+
+2. **Validation Rigor**:
+   - "Critical system" → Symbolic + test + manual validation
+   - "Internal tool" → Test validation only
+
+3. **Timeline**:
+   - "Fast migration" → Direct generation with test validation
+   - "Risk-averse" → Shadow deployment with gradual cutover
+
+---
+
+## Appendix A: Complete Academic Paper References
+
+### Specification Mining & Extraction
+
+| Paper | arXiv ID | Key Contribution |
+|-------|----------|------------------|
+| AutoSpec: Enchanting Program Specification Synthesis | [2404.00762](https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.00762) | 79% automated verification through LLM + static analysis |
+| SpecRover: Code Intent Extraction via LLMs | [2408.02232](https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02232) | Intent extraction from code |
+| SpecGen: Automated Generation of Formal Program Specifications | [2401.08807](https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08807) | Formal spec generation |
+| Seeking Specifications: Neuro-Symbolic Synthesis | [2504.21061](https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21061) | LLMs distinguish implemented vs intended behavior |
+
+### Non-Determinism & Consistency
+
+| Paper | arXiv ID | Key Contribution |
+|-------|----------|------------------|
+| Non-determinism of ChatGPT in Code Generation | [2308.02828](https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.02828) | 75% variance documented, T=0 insufficient |
+| Generative AI Reproducibility and Consensus | [2307.01898](https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.01898) | 100% consensus achievable with beam search |
+| LLM Output Drift: Cross-Provider Mitigation | [2511.07585](https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.07585) | Structured generation maintains determinism |
+| Code Consistency with RAG | [2502.00611](https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.00611) | RAG improves consistency |
+
+### Prototype-to-Production Transformation
+
+| Paper | arXiv ID | Key Contribution |
+|-------|----------|------------------|
+| Bridging Prototype-Production Gap (Codelevate) | [2511.07257](https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.07257) | Multi-agent system for Jupyter→production |
+| Beyond Prototyping: Enterprise-Grade Frontend | [2512.06046](https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.06046) | AI4UI for production readiness |
+| Lost in Code Generation: Role of Software Models | [2511.02475](https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02475) | Reverse engineering AI-generated code challenges |
+| Generating SAD from Source Code | [2511.05165](https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.05165) | Architecture extraction with LLMs |
+
+### Code Transformation & Refactoring
+
+| Paper | arXiv ID | Key Contribution |
+|-------|----------|------------------|
+| Don't Transform Code, Code the Transforms | [2410.08806](https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08806) | Explicit transforms > direct LLM rewriting |
+| Refactoring with LLMs | [2510.03914](https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.03914) | GPT-4o has MORE semantic errors than DeepSeek |
+| Code Change Automation: LLMs + TBE | [2402.07138](https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07138) | Semantic-preserving transformations |
+
+### Legacy Code Modernization
+
+| Paper | arXiv ID | Key Contribution |
+|-------|----------|------------------|
+| LLMs for Legacy Code Modernization | [2411.14971](https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.14971) | Documentation generation for MUMPS, ALC |
+| Contemporary Software Modernization | [2407.04017](https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.04017) | 10 research challenges agenda |
+| CodeMEnv: Benchmarking Code Migration | [2506.00894](https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00894) | 26.50% pass@1 average |
+| Empowering Application Modernization | [2506.10984](https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.10984) | Human-AI collaboration framework |
+| Migrating Code at Scale (Google) | [2504.09691](https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09691) | TRANSAGENT, UniTrans approaches |
+
+### Multi-Agent Systems for SE
+
+| Paper | arXiv ID | Key Contribution |
+|-------|----------|------------------|
+| Self-Organized Agents (SoA) | [2404.02183](https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.02183) | Scalable multi-agent code generation |
+| LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems for SE | [2404.04834](https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04834) | Comprehensive survey |
+| Survey on Code Generation with LLM Agents | [2508.00083](https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00083) | Single vs multi-agent taxonomy |
+| AgentMesh | [2507.19902](https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.19902) | Cooperative multi-agent framework |
+| NorMAS-SE | [2512.02329](https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.02329) | Normative reasoning for SE agents |
+
+### Semantic Equivalence & Clone Detection
+
+| Paper | arXiv ID | Key Contribution |
+|-------|----------|------------------|
+| Assessing Correctness via Uncertainty Estimation | [2502.11620](https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11620) | Symbolic clustering for functional equivalence |
+| HyClone: LLM + Execution Validation | [2508.01357](https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01357) | Two-stage semantic clone detection |
+| Detecting Semantic Clones of Unseen Functionality | [2510.04143](https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04143) | Contrastive learning for generalization |
+| Deep Learning for Semantic Clone Detection | [2412.14739](https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14739) | Type-4 clone detection survey |
+
+### Test-Driven & Behavioral Validation
+
+| Paper | arXiv ID | Key Contribution |
+|-------|----------|------------------|
+| FreshBrew: Java Migration Benchmark | [2510.04852](https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04852) | 3-gate validation protocol |
+| Test-Driven Development for Code Generation | [2402.13521](https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13521) | TDD principles for LLM verification |
+| Automating Correctness Assessment | [2310.18834](https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18834) | Semantic equivalence through testing |
+| InspectCoder: Dynamic Analysis Self-Repair | [2510.18327](https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18327) | Runtime behavior guides repairs |
+
+### Knowledge Graphs & Code Understanding
+
+| Paper | arXiv ID | Key Contribution |
+|-------|----------|------------------|
+| RefExpo: Dependency Graph Extraction | [2407.02620](https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02620) | Software project structure analysis |
+| CodeKGC: Knowledge Graph from Code | [2304.09048](https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.09048) | Code-to-KG construction |
+| Knowledge-Based Multi-Agent Architecture | [2503.20536](https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20536) | Architecture design from KG |
+| LLM-assisted Software Traceability | [2511.02434](https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02434) | Architecture entity recognition |
+
+---
+
+## Appendix B: Industry References
+
+### Vibe Coding Context
+
+- [Google Cloud: What is Vibe Coding](https://cloud.google.com/discover/what-is-vibe-coding)
+- [Ajith's AI Pulse: Vibe Coding Future](https://ajithp.com/2025/04/14/vibe-coding-ai-software-development/)
+- [Index.dev: How Vibe Coding Changes Development](https://www.index.dev/blog/vibe-coding-ai-development)
+- [Beyond Vibe Coding Guide](https://beyond.addy.ie/)
+
+### Architecture Patterns
+
+- [AWS: Strangler Fig Pattern](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/prescriptive-guidance/latest/modernization-decomposing-monoliths/strangler-fig.html)
+- [Microsoft Azure: Strangler Fig Pattern](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/patterns/strangler-fig)
+- [Microservices.io: Strangler Application](https://microservices.io/patterns/refactoring/strangler-application.html)
+
+### Human-AI Collaboration
+
+- [arXiv:2503.06195](https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.06195) - Human-AI Experience in IDEs
+- [arXiv:2405.12731](https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.12731) - AI Transformation of Developer Routine by 2030
+- [arXiv:2509.19708](https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.19708) - Measuring AI's True Impact on Productivity
+- [arXiv:2504.20329](https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.20329) - AI Roles and Adoption
+- [arXiv:2506.08945](https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08945) - Global AI Diffusion in Coding
+
+---
+
+## Appendix C: Key Statistics
+
+### Vibe Coding Adoption (2025)
+
+| Metric | Value | Source |
+|--------|-------|--------|
+| YC startups with 95% AI-generated code | 25% | TechCrunch |
+| Developers using AI for half their code | 60% | GitHub 2024 Survey |
+| Python functions from U.S. contributors AI-written | 30.1% | arXiv:2506.08945 |
+| Developers adopted AI tools (early 2025) | 44% | Industry reports |
+
+### Non-Determinism Measurements
+
+| Benchmark | Variance Rate | Source |
+|-----------|---------------|--------|
+| CodeContests | 75.76% | arXiv:2308.02828 |
+| APPS | 51.00% | arXiv:2308.02828 |
+| HumanEval | 47.56% | arXiv:2308.02828 |
+
+### Migration Benchmarks
+
+| Metric | Value | Source |
+|--------|-------|--------|
+| CodeMEnv average pass@1 | 26.50% | arXiv:2506.00894 |
+| GPT-4o best pass@1 | 43.84% | arXiv:2506.00894 |
+| AutoSpec verification success | 79% | arXiv:2404.00762 |
+
+### Productivity Impact
+
+| Metric | Before AI | After AI | Change | Source |
+|--------|-----------|----------|--------|--------|
+| Cycle time | 150.5h | 99.6h | -33.8% | arXiv:2509.19708 |
+| Review time | 128.8h | 90.5h | -29.8% | arXiv:2509.19708 |
+| Sprint completion | baseline | 30-40% faster | +35% | Industry reports |
+
+---
+
+*This research document synthesizes 40+ academic papers and industry sources to inform the iris.md platform design for vibe-coded prototype to production transformation.*
+
+*Last updated: 2025-12-09*