EXAMPLE / Governance
Adapt the view. Preserve the boundary.
Inspect role-specific approval surfaces where adaptive hints cannot grant authority.
Follow the pattern. Inspect its limits.
Explore the source walkthrough, its evidence and the choices you would make in your own application.
Inspect the roles
The internal approval fixture defines six roles and components for budget risk, vendor queues, requester status, agent procurement planning, and audit history.
An exploration of the inspected source; no example is executed here.
The situation.
An internal budget request reaches a founder, operations manager, frontline staff member, customer, AI agent, or auditor. Each role receives a relevant surface. Vendor commitment and budget exceptions retain explicit action boundaries across those views.
What you will learn
- Resolve different views of the same workflow for people and agents.
- Keep personalization hints separate from permissions and policy.
- Show or hide actions with explainable boundaries.
Follow the operation.
- 01
Inspect the roles
The internal approval fixture defines six roles and components for budget risk, vendor queues, requester status, agent procurement planning, and audit history.
- 02
Separate permissions from policy
The operations manager can be eligible for vendor selection while a budget exception still requires approval. The agent plan blocks vendor commitment and marks the budget exception as requiring approval.
- 03
Change presentation hints
The related service-delivery fixture compares plain and adaptive contexts and asserts unchanged action boundaries. The internal-approval fixture separately tests vendor restrictions and budget approval. Presentation guidance does not create authority.
- 04
Inspect the restricted view
The customer fixture hides protected actions and tests that explanations do not expose redacted information. Apply the same checks to the roles and data in your own workflow.
What the source demonstrates.
- The inspected fixtures resolve surfaces for six roles.
- Tests assert that adaptive hints preserve policy and permission boundaries.
- The internal approval tests distinguish blocked actions, approval-required actions, and hidden customer actions.
What it does not establish.
- That hiding a control replaces server-side authorization.
- That every host API or renderer automatically enforces the surface result.
- A full production procurement app or an executed RoleMorph session in this review.
Bring it into your environment.
Use the exact source context and prerequisites below. A source walkthrough is not a verified public-package installation recipe.
- Access to the inspected source repository and a checkout at the cited revision.
- The repository's Bun workspace dependencies and required generated package exports. These instructions were inspected; the examples were not executed in this review.
Working directory: packages/platform/ui/surface-runtime
bun test src/rolemorph/fixture-domains.test.tsThe source tests cover role resolution, adaptive-boundary invariance, vendor permission, budget approval, and customer hiding.
Fixture and tests inspected; not executed here.
Read the related guide →Make the pattern your own.
- Start with workflow roles, allowed actions, and protected data.
- Treat adaptive UI preferences as presentation input.
- Enforce the same authority at the operation boundary and test it separately.
Inspect the evidence.
Reviewed 2026-10-27 · b67c376f
Pinned source links require repository access; publication and anonymous package availability were not checked for this example.
- Declared maturity
- Not declared
- Catalogue registration
- Library fixture; not the personalization example
- Inline preview
- No dedicated registered RoleMorph preview
- Execution in this review
- Not rerun
- Production qualification
- Not assessed