Add AEAS visual system and strengthen review readiness

[Atanasseri]

Summary

This update adds a compact, AEAS-specific visual system and integrates it into the existing public documentation.

Signed commit: ec317d1d312986751d1e8177db36cc8d41116b46

• Adds a documented visual language for color, typography, geometry, connectors, status labels, accessibility, and approval handling.
• Adds System Map, Recorded Outcomes, Evidence and Release Chain, and Authority Matrix visuals.
• Registers the four SVG visuals and the existing social preview in a versioned visual manifest with a strict JSON Schema.
• Adds audience-specific reading paths for product leaders, technical reviewers, governance and risk readers, release reviewers, and prospective independent reviewers.
• Adds structured public claims for architecture, release integrity, and independent-review status.
• Extends publication verification and regression coverage for visual integrity, source support, unsafe SVG and PNG content, local image references, and sensitive-data leakage.

Purpose

The goal is to make AEAS easier to understand and inspect without increasing the strength of its public assurance claims. The visuals explain system structure, recorded review outcomes, evidence and release boundaries, and human decision authority.

Visual set

• System Map
• Recorded Outcomes
• Evidence and Release Chain
• Authority Matrix
• Visual System
• Visual Manifest

Manifest approval status: OWNER_APPROVED

If the status is OWNER_APPROVED, that approval is scoped to the exact registered renders. It does not represent independent technical review or certification.

Assurance and release boundary

• This is a post-release documentation refinement on the existing PR number 5 branch.
• The immutable v1.0.0 tag, GitHub Release, release assets, checksums, provenance records, and DOI remain unchanged.
• Independent technical review remains NOT_PERFORMED.
• No certification or independent assurance conclusion is claimed.
• Public release records do not expose or independently validate private evidence contents.
• Human approval and release authority remain distinct from automation status reporting.

Verification

• 65 tests pass.
• Standard publication verification passes.
• Release-mode publication verification passes.
• Visual metadata, dimensions, accessibility elements, local references, claim-source relationships, and managed-asset coverage are checked automatically.
• Unsafe or externally referenced SVG content, malformed PNG structures, unsupported image embedding forms, and encoded sensitive paths are rejected.

Reviewer focus

Please review:

1. Whether each visual accurately reflects the corresponding Markdown source and registered claims.
2. Whether the Authority Matrix preserves the boundary between human decisions and automation.
3. Whether the Evidence and Release Chain clearly separates claim discipline, release records, private evidence, and independent scrutiny.
4. Whether Recorded Outcomes describes the recorded process without implying certification.
5. Whether the owner-approval status matches the exact visual files under review.

Out of scope

• Changing or recreating v1.0.0.
• Publishing private evidence or protected engineering history.
• Claiming that independent review has been completed.
• Automatically merging this pull request.

[hamidmohammadipour]

I went through the changes in this PR and the overall direction looks solid.

What stood out to me is the clear separation between human authority, technical review, evidence, and release decisions. The documentation is structured well, and the new visual material makes the system much easier to understand without oversimplifying the assurance boundaries.

I also like the attention given to traceability and verification, especially around public claims, release integrity, visual assets, and the distinction between automated checks and independent review. That separation is easy to lose in systems involving AI agents, and it is handled carefully here.

From an engineering perspective, the changes feel consistent with the existing architecture and improve both readability and reviewability of the project. I did not find any blocking concerns within the scope I reviewed.

Nice work. Approved.

[shamsza]

What I found most valuable in this work is the focus on what remains after the AI interaction itself is over.

The idea of preserving a durable chain of authority, evidence, review state, and release decisions gives the project a different character from most agentic engineering frameworks. It is not only about whether an agent can produce or review code, but whether the resulting engineering process can still be reconstructed and challenged later.

I also appreciate that the project keeps uncertainty visible instead of turning every successful check into a stronger claim than the evidence supports. That restraint, together with the treatment of corrective work as something that must itself be re-examined, makes the assurance model feel much more credible.

Approved.