Visual Accuracy Contract

This project is stricter than a normal "AI template generator". The goal is not to create a document that is merely similar. The goal is to reproduce the provided reference as accurately as possible.

Contract

The generated result must visually match the reference.

Any visible mismatch must be treated as a defect unless it is explicitly documented as a known limitation.

Required visual parity checks

A revision is not considered successful until these points are checked:

• page size matches the reference
• orientation matches the reference
• main layout regions match
• visual hierarchy matches
• content order matches
• spacing is visually aligned
• typography is close or intentionally substituted, with font source and fallback documented when a custom font is used
• colors are matched or documented
• icons match the reference or use a documented Iconify replacement
• tables preserve proportions and structure
• headers are present
• footers are present
• cards, badges, backgrounds, and decorative elements are present when relevant
• shaped components preserve semantic ownership: content that visually belongs inside a circle, rounded card, pill, clipped image area, or badge is implemented as a child of that shape, not as a sibling overlay pulled into place with negative margins
• no important visual element is missing
• no unexpected element is added
• output preview is compared against reference
• differences are documented in visual-review.md

Visual mismatch classification

Every visual mismatch must be classified using one of these labels:

CRITICAL
MAJOR
MINOR
ACCEPTED_LIMITATION
INTENTIONAL_DIFFERENCE

Classification	Meaning
CRITICAL	Output does not preserve the reference structure or core meaning
MAJOR	Significant visual difference visible immediately
MINOR	Small spacing, color, typography, or alignment issue
ACCEPTED_LIMITATION	Difference caused by known API/tooling limitation
INTENTIONAL_DIFFERENCE	Difference explicitly requested or approved by user

Approval rule

A revision can be approved only when:

• no critical mismatches remain
• no major mismatches remain unless explicitly accepted
• no semantic ownership defects remain for shaped components unless they are backed by a verified engine limitation
• minor mismatches are documented
• all generated artifacts exist
• code compiles
• PDF renders
• preview image exists
• visual review is written
• revision metadata is complete

Approval is performed by the Revision Manager Agent. See agents.md for the safety rules around approval, and revision-model.md for the exact metadata that must be present.

What this contract is not

This contract does not claim that the workflow performs perfect screenshot-to-code conversion. Human review is part of the process.

The wording used by the project is intentionally cautious:

This project provides a structured AI-assisted workflow.
It helps agents analyze, plan, generate, render, compare, and revise GraphCompose templates.
Human review remains part of the process.

The goal is strict visual parity with the reference, achieved through an iterative render/compare/revise workflow.
Remaining differences must be documented.

The contract is a discipline imposed on the workflow, not a promise that a single pass produces a pixel-perfect result. Differences are permitted, but only when they are classified and documented. See limitations.md for the honest scope of the workflow today.