Update demo replay validation and testing documentation

- Modified the autodev state to reflect the current testing phase and details of the new `jetson-e2e` tests.
- Enhanced the "How to Test" documentation to provide clearer instructions on the demo replay validation process, including video and tlog alignment steps.
- Updated architectural documentation to include the new demo replay operator flow and its dependencies.
- Documented the removal of deprecated auto-sync features and clarified the operator-facing UI for replay validation.
- Added new entries in the dependencies table for upcoming tasks related to the demo replay flow.

These changes improve clarity and usability for operators and developers working with the demo replay system.

.cursor/skills/research/references/quality-checklists.md

@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+# Quality Checklists — Reference
+
+## General Quality
+
+- [ ] All core conclusions have L1/L2 tier factual support
+- [ ] No use of vague words like "possibly", "probably" without annotating uncertainty
+- [ ] Comparison dimensions are complete with no key differences missed
+- [ ] At least one real use case validates conclusions
+- [ ] References are complete with accessible links
+- [ ] Every citation can be directly verified by the user (source verifiability)
+- [ ] Structure hierarchy is clear; executives can quickly locate information
+
+## Decomposition Completeness
+
+- [ ] Domain discovery search executed: searched "key factors when [problem domain]" before starting research
+- [ ] Completeness probes applied: every probe from `references/comparison-frameworks.md` checked against sub-questions
+- [ ] No uncovered areas remain: all gaps filled with sub-questions or justified as not applicable
+
+## Internet Search Depth
+
+- [ ] Every sub-question was searched with at least 3-5 different query variants
+- [ ] At least 3 perspectives from the Perspective Rotation were applied and searched
+- [ ] Search saturation reached: last searches stopped producing new substantive information
+- [ ] Adjacent fields and analogous problems were searched, not just direct matches
+- [ ] Contrarian viewpoints were actively sought ("why not X", "X criticism", "X failure")
+- [ ] Practitioner experience was searched (production use, real-world results, lessons learned)
+- [ ] Iterative deepening completed: follow-up questions from initial findings were searched
+- [ ] No sub-question relies solely on training data without web verification
+
+## Component Option Breadth
+
+- [ ] `00_question_decomposition.md` contains a Component Option Search Plan
+- [ ] Every component area was searched across simple baseline, established production, open-source, commercial/vendor, current SOTA, adjacent-domain, no-build/defer, and known-bad options where applicable
+- [ ] Every component area has at least 3 realistic candidates, or a documented explanation of why broad searches found fewer
+- [ ] Each lead candidate has official/source-of-truth evidence plus independent validation when available
+- [ ] Each component area includes at least one baseline/fallback option and at least one rejected or experimental option when possible
+- [ ] Alternative names, synonyms, and neighboring-domain terms were searched before declaring the option landscape complete
+- [ ] Licensing, runtime, platform, maintenance, and unsupported-scenario searches were performed for every lead, fallback, and rejected candidate
+
+## Mode A Specific
+
+- [ ] Phase 1 completed: AC assessment was presented to and confirmed by user
+- [ ] AC assessment consistent: Solution draft respects the (possibly adjusted) acceptance criteria and restrictions
+- [ ] Competitor analysis included: Existing solutions were researched
+- [ ] All components have comparison tables: Each component lists alternatives with tools, advantages, limitations, security, cost
+- [ ] Component options are broad: component tables include baseline, production, open-source, commercial/vendor, SOTA/research, adjacent-domain, defer/no-build, and disqualified options where applicable
+- [ ] Tools/libraries verified: Suggested tools actually exist and work as described
+- [ ] Component fit matrix completed: `06_component_fit_matrix.md` (or `06_component_fit_matrix/` if split) exists and every selected component/tool/pattern is marked `Selected`
+- [ ] No field-adjacent substitution: no selected candidate is chosen only because it solves a similar class of problem while failing the project's explicit constraints
+- [ ] Testing strategy covers AC: Tests map to acceptance criteria
+- [ ] Tech stack documented (if Phase 3 ran): `tech_stack.md` has evaluation tables, risk assessment, and learning requirements
+- [ ] Security analysis documented (if Phase 4 ran): `security_analysis.md` has threat model and per-component controls
+
+## Mode B Specific
+
+- [ ] Findings table complete: All identified weak points documented with solutions
+- [ ] Weak point categories covered: Functional, security, and performance assessed
+- [ ] New draft is self-contained: Written as if from scratch, no "updated" markers
+- [ ] Performance column included: Mode B comparison tables include performance characteristics
+- [ ] Previous draft issues addressed: Every finding in the table is resolved in the new draft
+- [ ] Existing selected components were challenged against a broad alternative landscape before being kept
+- [ ] Existing component fit audited: every old and new component/tool/pattern was checked against `restrictions.md`, `acceptance_criteria.md`, and the Project Constraint Matrix
+- [ ] Rejected/experimental candidates are not lead recommendations unless the user explicitly accepted the risk
+
+## Timeliness Check (High-Sensitivity Domain BLOCKING)
+
+When the research topic has Critical or High sensitivity level:
+
+- [ ] Timeliness sensitivity assessment completed: `00_question_decomposition.md` contains a timeliness assessment section
+- [ ] Source timeliness annotated: Every source has publication date, timeliness status, version info
+- [ ] No outdated sources used as factual evidence (Critical: within 6 months; High: within 1 year)
+- [ ] Version numbers explicitly annotated for all technical products/APIs/SDKs
+- [ ] Official sources prioritized: Core conclusions have support from official documentation/blogs
+- [ ] Cross-validation completed: Key technical information confirmed from at least 2 independent sources
+- [ ] Download page directly verified: Platform support info comes from real-time extraction of official download pages
+- [ ] Protocol/feature names searched: Searched for product-supported protocol names (MCP, ACP, etc.)
+- [ ] GitHub Issues mined: Reviewed product's GitHub Issues popular discussions
+- [ ] Community hotspots identified: Identified and recorded feature points users care most about
+
+## Target Audience Consistency Check (BLOCKING)
+
+- [ ] Research boundary clearly defined: `00_question_decomposition.md` has clear population/geography/timeframe/level boundaries
+- [ ] Every source has target audience annotated in `01_source_registry.md` (or category files under `01_source_registry/` if split)
+- [ ] Mismatched sources properly handled (excluded, annotated, or marked reference-only)
+- [ ] No audience confusion in fact cards: Every fact has target audience consistent with research boundary
+- [ ] No audience confusion in the report: Policies/research/data cited have consistent target audiences
+
+## Source Verifiability
+
+- [ ] All cited links are publicly accessible (annotate `[login required]` if not)
+- [ ] Citations include exact section/page/timestamp for long documents
+- [ ] Cited facts have corresponding statements in the original text (no over-interpretation)
+- [ ] Source publication/update dates annotated; technical docs include version numbers
+- [ ] Unverifiable information annotated `[limited source]` and not sole support for core conclusions
+
+## Exact-Fit Validation (BLOCKING)
+
+- [ ] Project Constraint Matrix extracted from problem context before component selection
+- [ ] Component fit matrix includes `Component Area`, `Option Family`, and `Pinned Mode/Config` columns
+- [ ] Every selected component/tool/library/service/pattern/algorithm has evidence for required inputs/outputs and integration boundaries
+- [ ] Every selected candidate has evidence for the operating context and lifecycle assumptions it must support
+- [ ] Every selected candidate has evidence for non-functional targets that are binding for the project
+- [ ] Known unsupported scenarios and failure reports were searched for every selected candidate
+- [ ] Mismatches are recorded as disqualifiers, not softened into generic limitations
+- [ ] Any candidate with unproven fit is marked `Experimental only` or escalated for user decision
+- [ ] Any candidate with documented constraint conflict is marked `Rejected`
+
+## API Capability Verification (BLOCKING)
+
+**Applicability**: this checklist applies only when the run is classified as **Technical-component selection** (see SKILL.md → Research Output Class). For non-technical research (concept comparison, market/policy investigation, root-cause analysis, knowledge organization), skip this checklist entirely and note the skip in `05_validation_log.md`. For mixed runs, apply only to technical component areas.
+
+For every lead candidate that is a library/SDK/framework/service:
+
+- [ ] The exact mode/configuration the project will use is pinned in one explicit sentence (inputs, outputs, runtime); no vague "supports X" language
+- [ ] `context7` (or equivalent docs lookup) was run for the candidate, with at least 3 queries: mode enumeration, project's exact mode, disqualifier probe
+- [ ] All consulted URLs from context7 / official docs are appended to `01_source_registry.md` (or files under `01_source_registry/` if split)
+- [ ] A Minimum Viable Example (MVE) was saved for the pinned mode in `02_fact_cards.md` / `02_fact_cards/` (or `02_mve_evidence.md`) with: source, inputs in example, outputs in example, project inputs, project outputs required, match assessment ✅/⚠️/❌
+- [ ] When the MVE inputs or outputs do not exactly match the project's, the mismatch is cited from the official docs (not inferred), and the candidate is `Experimental only` or `Rejected`
+- [ ] When a library has multiple modes, each project-relevant mode appears as its own candidate row (not a single library row that softens across modes)
+- [ ] Restrictions × Candidate-Modes sub-matrix in `06_component_fit_matrix.md` (or files under `06_component_fit_matrix/` if split) is filled for every lead candidate, with one row per numbered restriction and per numbered acceptance criterion
+- [ ] Sub-matrix uses ✅ / ❌ / ❓ / N/A only — no free-form prose substitutes
+- [ ] No `Selected` candidate has any ❌ or ❓ cell in its sub-matrix
+- [ ] "Validation gate required" footnotes are explicitly classified as either *API capability* (must be resolved here) or *runtime quality* (may be carried forward)
+- [ ] Paraphrased capability claims in fact cards have been cross-checked against the literal mode-enumeration evidence (no `mono, inertial → mono-inertial` style conflation)