# Moderation Queue

## Objective

Turn reports into a queue moderators can work through consistently.

A permission-restricted review queue with assignment, locking, policy reasons, escalation, and a full audit trail of every decision.

## Before You Begin

This feature is being added to an application that already exists and already
works. Do not scaffold a new project, and do not assume a blank slate.

Inspect the codebase first and establish:

- The existing application structure and where code of this kind already lives.
- The framework and version in use.
- The existing design system — colours, spacing, typography, and component conventions.
- Existing UI components you can reuse instead of writing new ones.
- The existing database structure, if this feature needs to persist anything.
- The existing authentication and authorization system, if this feature is user-scoped.
- Dependencies already installed, so you don't add a library that duplicates one.
- The existing test setup and conventions.

Only start writing code once you understand the above. If the application
already implements part of this feature, extend it rather than replacing it.

## Implementation Instructions

1. Build a queue of open items with filters for reason, severity, age, and target type. Sort so the oldest and the most-reported surface first, and make the current backlog size visible.
2. Assign or lock an item to one moderator while they work it, with a visible expiry so an abandoned lock releases itself. Two moderators applying opposite decisions to the same item is the failure this feature exists to prevent.
3. Require a policy reason on every decision, chosen from a maintained list, plus optional private notes. Free-text-only decisions make patterns impossible to review later.
4. Support escalation to a senior queue or a second reviewer, carrying the full history rather than starting a new item.
5. Do not let this queue become the app's generic approval tool. Per-record approve and reject workflows are owned by Approval Requests, and the reporter-facing submission flow is owned by Content Reporting; extend those rather than rebuilding them here.

## UI and UX Requirements

Match the application's existing design system exactly. Reuse its components,
spacing, and typography. This feature should look like it was always there.

## Responsive Requirements

Works on mobile, tablet, and desktop. Touch targets are large enough to hit on a
phone, and nothing overflows horizontally at 320px.

## Accessibility Requirements

- Fully keyboard navigable.
- Correct semantic elements and ARIA roles.
- Visible focus states.
- Meets WCAG AA contrast.
- Dynamic changes are announced to screen readers.
- Respects prefers-reduced-motion.

## Edge Cases

- Evidence must be the snapshot taken at report time. A moderator must be able to see what was reported even after the author edits or deletes it.
- Multiple reports about the same target should group into one review item while preserving each reporter's reason and count.
- A decision must be reversible, and the reversal must itself be audited — moderators make mistakes and the original state has to be recoverable.
- A moderator must not be able to review an item they reported, or one about their own content.
- Bulk actions need a confirmation that names the count and the reason, and must not silently skip items another moderator has locked.
- Actions on a deleted or already-actioned target must fail cleanly with an explanation, not throw or double-apply.

## Testing

Exercise the feature end to end in the running application. Cover every edge case
above, then run the existing test suite and confirm nothing regressed.

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] Only users with the moderator role can open the queue or act on an item.
- [ ] An item can be locked to one moderator, and locks expire automatically.
- [ ] Evidence snapshots remain viewable after the original content is edited or deleted.
- [ ] Every decision records actor, policy reason, timestamp, and target, and reversals are audited too.
- [ ] Escalation moves an item with its full history intact.
- [ ] Reporting submission and generic approve/reject flows are not duplicated here.
- [ ] The feature matches the existing design system.
- [ ] No existing functionality is broken.

## Adaptation Rules

- Match the existing design system. Do not introduce a new colour palette,
  spacing scale, or component library.
- Reuse existing components and utilities wherever they fit.
- Follow the naming, file layout, and code style already present.
- Do not upgrade, replace, or remove existing dependencies to make this
  feature fit. Adapt the feature to the app, not the app to the feature.
- Do not break existing functionality. If a change is genuinely required in
  existing code, make the smallest one that works and say so.
- If something in these instructions conflicts with how the application is
  built, follow the application and explain the deviation.

## Final Verification

Before you report the work as done:

1. Re-read the acceptance criteria above and check each one against what you
   actually built.
2. Run the application and exercise the feature end to end.
3. Run the existing test suite and confirm you have broken nothing.
4. Check the feature on mobile, tablet, and desktop widths.
5. Check keyboard navigation and focus handling.
6. Summarize what changed: files added, files modified, and anything you
   deliberately did differently because of how this application is built.

If any acceptance criterion is unmet, fix it before reporting completion.