AI
Usability sub-agent
Usability sub-agent
User-centered design and usability specialist focused on discoverability, task clarity, responsive behavior, interaction friction, visual hierarchy, and inclusive UX.
CARBONENGINEERING CONFIDENCE
Command report
AIJayAI test manager · CARBON
Meet Jay. Modeled on Jason Arbon’s approach to testing: start with the customer’s intent, follow the consequential risks, challenge the evidence, and make the next useful action clear.
Jay is an AI persona inspired by Jason Arbon, not Jason himself. His visual identity is a distinctive J-shaped character, not a human portrait.
Jason’s background spans embedded systems, operating systems, search, enterprise servers, crowdsourced testing, and manual and automated testing at scale. Jay draws on the methods curated into CARBON; he did not personally hold those roles.
Coordinates specialists, presents recorded evidence, and helps the coding agent verify authorized fixes. Human judgment and existing permissions stay in control.
DecisionRESULT
CARBON X — independent public Xbox UI evaluation
25 of 31 bounded checks executed: 22 passed, one failed focus-return check, one partial mobile-dialog check and one access-wording observation. Three blocked, two planned, one conditional control check not offered. Seven route identities, three viewports. Not a full product assessment.
Basis: One in-app browser session, 23 October 2026. Browser engine version unavailable. 32 public capture pairs. No real AT, full contrast/zoom, second engine, physical mobile or measured performance. Persona opinions are AI interpretations, not user research. Native run initialization was partial; this command report summarizes separate evidence.
IntentPublic signed-out https://www.xbox.com/en-US/play; no authentication, age verification, purchases, gameplay or service mutation.
Risk0 finding(s) recorded
Evidence7 artifact(s) linked
DecisionRESULT
Next evidencecarbon-accessibility
Run context · /carbon
Public signed-out https://www.xbox.com/en-US/play; no authentication, age verification, purchases, gameplay or service mutation. · partial · 2026-10-23T20:56:44Z
Testing perspectivesUser Interface
AI
AI sub-agents identify the applied testing perspective. Findings and pass states still require the evidence shown in this report.
Evidence needed for a stronger decision
Real assistive technology and continuous keyboard journey
Targeted keyboard checks do not establish conformance
Ownership/subscription intent
Access wording may be ambiguous
Physical mobile and another engine
Viewport resizing does not cover device behavior
Executed bounded checks
25 / 31
Passed narrow oracles
22
Capture pairs
32
Route identities
7
A
Artifacts
Executive report hub../index.html
Case ledger CSV../cases.csv
Persona journeyspersona-journeys.html
WCAG 2.2 criterion reportLevel A and AA outcomes with tested, failed, not-tested, not-applicable, and manual-review states.
Accessibility Conformance ReportEvidence-derived ACR working draft structured around the ITI VPAT 2.5Rev WCAG Edition.
Download WCAG evaluation (Word)Formal, editable DOCX with scope, methods, evidence and remediation.
Download Accessibility Conformance Report (Word)Formal, editable VPAT-aligned ACR; retains evidence and review limitations.
Optional questions that could change this assessment
The assessment is complete. Answer now or later with /carbon-human; these questions do not block the run.
Testers
Which domain invariants, exceptional cases, or reconciliation rules would an experienced operator spot immediately but are not written in the code or tests?
Why it matters: Data and API behavior often have business rules that look valid syntactically while being wrong operationally.
Quick choices: No additional rules; I can provide rules; Ask a domain expert; Need discovery. You can also give your own answer.
PM (Project Manager)
If authentication, payment, privacy, or a currently severe finding fails in the real workflow, who absorbs the harm, what is the worst credible outcome, and which failures are unacceptable even once?
Why it matters: The code cannot determine business consequence, compensating controls, or the organization’s risk appetite.
Quick choices: Hold on failure; Canary with safeguards; Recoverable incident; Need risk owner. You can also give your own answer.
What decision should CARBON help make for Public signed-out https://www.xbox.com/en-US/play; no authentication, age verification, purchases, gameplay or service mutation.: a demo readiness call, an internal trial, a staged rollout, or production release—and when?
Why it matters: The project evidence does not reliably establish the release stage, deadline, or decision owner.
Quick choices: Demo; Internal trial; Staged rollout; Production release. You can also give your own answer.
Product Manager
What evidence would convince the accountable product owner that the intended user achieved the promised outcome with acceptable effort?
Why it matters: A stated feature or workflow is not yet a decision-quality value oracle.
Quick choices: Observe a real user; Pilot outcome; Product metric; Not defined yet. You can also give your own answer.
For the intended user, what would make this experience feel credible, clear, and worth trusting—and what confusion or surprise would make it unacceptable?
Why it matters: Visual and interaction checks can detect defects, but product taste, trust, and workflow fit need accountable human judgment.
Quick choices: Clear enough; Reduce friction; Validate with users; Not judged yet. You can also give your own answer.
Human decision context is pending; confidence covers observed technical evidence but not unrecorded intent, risk appetite, taste, consequence, or accountability.
Evidence boundary
One in-app browser session, 23 October 2026. Browser engine version unavailable. 32 public capture pairs. No real AT, full contrast/zoom, second engine, physical mobile or measured performance. Persona opinions are AI interpretations, not user research. Native run initialization was partial; this command report summarizes separate evidence.
→
Next Carbon commands
Run a focused follow-up inside a compatible coding agent, or copy it when the host does not support interactive report actions.
Run next
/carbon-accessibility Continue public signed-out keyboard and real assistive-technology checks with isolated browser ownership
Close highest accessibility evidence gaps
Runs only after you click. Agent approval gates still apply.Run next
/carbon-more Continue saved public UI cases for physical mobile and cross-engine behavior only when isolated controls are available
Expand representative compatibility evidence safely
Runs only after you click. Agent approval gates still apply.