PopChoice Docs
Portfolio evidence

Portfolio Handoff

Factual PopChoice case-study handoff with claims, evidence, and blockers.

PopChoice Portfolio Handoff

1. Factual summary

Shipped in development. PopChoice is a Next.js/React movie recommendation product that turns a short Fast Pick or Normal Match flow into a persisted result for Solo, Duo, or same-device Group audiences. The repository includes pgvector-backed catalog retrieval, TMDB enrichment/discovery, OpenAI-backed ranking paths, BullMQ workers, account movie memory, feedback, deterministic recommendation evals, operator tooling, and a multi-service deployment/observability setup.

Production verified — 2026-07-16. Production identifies itself as v0.2.0 from main at d5da1cd; public health reported PostgreSQL and Redis healthy. This does not verify every development feature on the live product.

2. Claim → status → evidence

ClaimStatusEvidence
v0.2.0 is the production releaseProduction verifiedbuild endpoint, tag, release notes
Entry flow is Fast Pick/Normal Match, then Solo/Duo/GroupProduction verifiedstate machine, e2e matrix, captures
Group supports multi-device rooms or QR invitesPlannedissue #359, product behavior
Result URLs survive reload and can be sharedShipped in developmentresult GET, results view
Feedback affects durable signed-in movie memoryShipped in developmentfeedback API, recommendation e2e
PopChoice has deterministic recommendation regression gatesShipped in developmentfixtures, CI
A fixed-candidate Duo quality-review protocol is executableShipped in developmentprotocol, implementation
One controlled live Duo run exposed a weak bridge selectionDevelopment verifiedrecorded result, review
Protected operator surfaces are live and routinely usedAnecdotal / unverifiedCode map in Operations; no authenticated live inspection performed
The recommendation engine improved conversion, accuracy, or retentionAnecdotal / unverifiedNo product analytics dataset or approved metric was found

3. Product-flow evidence pack

Use Product Flow as the canonical short path. The strongest portfolio sequence is: current landing → depth choice → audience choice → one taste-control screen → persisted progress → completed result with feedback/follow-up. Do not imply that every screen was verified on production when deterministic local evidence was used.

4. Recommendation scenario

Use feedback-memory repeat avoidance for the reproducible deterministic regression example. Use the Controlled Duo protocol to describe the fixed compromise test and its first recorded failure. The single live run selected the deliberately weaker comparison candidate and was rejected by the owner; it does not demonstrate general recommendation quality.

5. Screenshot and asset manifest

AssetStatusCaptionAlt text
assets/01-production-landing.pngProduction verifiedPopChoice v0.2.0 public landing in English.PopChoice landing page with animated poster hero and primary movie-finder call to action.
assets/02-match-depth.pngProduction verifiedFirst quiz decision: Fast Pick or Normal Match.Two large quiz cards offering Fast Pick and Normal Match.
assets/03-audience.pngProduction verifiedAudience follows match depth: Solo, Duo, or Group.Audience selection screen with Solo, Duo, and Group options.
assets/04-hard-avoids.pngProduction verifiedFast Pick hard-avoid controls.Fast Pick screen with long runtime and too-obvious constraints selected.
assets/05-deterministic-progress.pngShipped in development; controlled statePersisted Duo result while ranking is in progress.PopChoice progress screen choosing the strongest matches and building a shortlist.
assets/06-deterministic-duo-result.pngShipped in developmentDeterministic Normal Match result for Alice and Bob.PopChoice Duo result explaining the shared mood and each participant's inputs.
assets/07-deterministic-failure.pngShipped in development; controlled stateTerminal result state and fresh-quiz action.PopChoice failed-result screen with a Start a fresh quiz button.
assets/08-deterministic-duo-reload.pngShipped in developmentThe same completed Duo result after reload.Reloaded PopChoice Duo result for Alice and Bob at the same persisted URL.

All captures use a 1440 × 900 desktop viewport, English locale, and no personal data. Assets 0104 were captured from public production without submitting a recommendation. Assets 0508 were captured locally from the isolated deterministic harness. The Duo result uses the real browser/API/database flow; progress and failure are controlled persisted states of the same disposable record. They must not be described as production states, real model output, or evidence that BullMQ retried successfully.

6. What the case study can honestly say now

  • “I grew a course exercise into a full-stack movie recommendation product with persisted results, background jobs, account memory, and operator tooling.”
  • “The current flow lets people choose recommendation depth and then decide for themselves, a duo, or a same-device group.”
  • “I added deterministic recommendation evals so hard avoids, bounded candidate selection, memory exclusions, and explanation requirements can regress in CI without spending provider credits.”
  • “PopChoice v0.2.0 is deployed in production; the public build endpoint exposes version and commit provenance.”
  • “One controlled live run passed six of seven formal checks and was still rejected because its fluent explanation overstated a weak taste overlap.”

7. What not to claim without more data

Do not claim user counts, conversion, retention, recommendation accuracy, latency improvement, cost savings, production reliability, product-market fit, or a final product outcome. Do not call protected dashboards live based only on deployment configuration. Do not describe deterministic fixture output as a real AI success story.

8. Shipped versus planned

Shipped in development: Fast Pick/Normal Match; Solo/Duo/same-device Group; taste controls and hard avoids; persisted stable results; feedback; one-shot more picks; movie memory; deterministic evals; Backoffice/Bull Board/Storybook/ docs/observability code surfaces.

Planned: multi-device rooms, invite links, QR/projector flow, a canonical TasteSignal[] backend, broader TMDB-first evolution, and any unimplemented roadmap item.

9. Questions for the owner

  1. Is the original Figma Make file still available, and may it be linked or screenshotted in a public case study?
  2. Was the mascot redrawn in Figma, Affinity Designer, or another tool?
  3. Which protected operator surfaces may be captured, with what redaction?
  4. Are there attributable friend/family quotes that may be used as qualitative observations, with consent and without presenting them as research?
  5. Is the design-system route intentionally private, or should its broken /style-guide internal links and public navigation status be completed first?

Create a separate portfolio worktree. Read this handoff and linked source files, then update the case study using only Production verified and Shipped in development claims with their labels preserved in working notes. Keep the four production screenshots as a compact entry-flow story. Use the deterministic Duo result, progress, and failure captures as development evidence with their controlled-state provenance preserved. Keep planned room flows and unverified outcome/metric claims out of visitor copy.

Suggested visitor-facing lines:

  • “Choose how deep to go, then pick for yourself, a duo, or the whole couch.”
  • “A stable result survives the wait, reloads, and gives feedback a path back into future picks.”
  • “Deterministic evals keep taste constraints testable without turning CI into a paid model-quality experiment.”

On this page