classroomio/prd/forms-product

Forms Product PRD

Status

• Draft — core product decisions locked (see Confirmed Product Decisions)

Date

• March 22, 2026 (initial draft)
• July 18, 2026 (integration-first revision: attachment binding model, MVP integration loops, purchase-request pipeline, scope cuts, commercial model)

Implementation Plan

• See implementation-plan.md for phased delivery, ticket breakdown, and recommended sprint sequencing.

Purpose

Build a standalone Forms product for schools and education teams to collect structured responses such as student feedback, course reviews, enrollment requests, parent intake, event registrations, and internal staff forms, while reusing as much of the existing exercise question engine as possible.

Executive Summary

ClassroomIO already has a strong reusable question engine:

• @cio/question-types already centralizes question contracts, answer serialization, renderer contracts, and form-state helpers, and explicitly calls out reuse for future products such as forms/assessments.
• @cio/ui/custom/exercise-question already supports question rendering in edit, take, preview, review, and submission modes across 12 question types.
• The current exercise stack already handles templates, file upload answers, submission storage, and submission summary visualizations.

The main constraint is that the current product is still deeply shaped around courses, lessons, grading, and enrolled students. That makes it a poor fit for Google Forms / Typeform style workflows if we try to ship Forms by directly reusing the exercise and submission entities as-is.

Recommendation

Build Forms as a new top-level product domain, but reuse the existing question engine and renderer stack aggressively.

Reuse Estimate

• High reuse (60-70%): question types, renderer contracts, answer payloads, file upload answer model, template structure, summary visualization patterns.
• Medium reuse (20-30%): builder UI shell, preview flow, submission list components, analytics presentation patterns.
• Low reuse (0-15%): database entities, API routes, auth model, response ownership, publishing/sharing model, grading workflow.

Problem Statement

Today, exercises can technically ask many of the same questions that a form would ask, but they are optimized for assessment, not response collection.

That creates hard product limits for schools and organizations that want to collect:

1. Student feedback after a course or session.
2. School review forms and satisfaction surveys.
3. Enrollment and application forms.
4. Parent intake and consent forms.
5. Staff requests and internal administrative forms.
6. Event registration forms.

The current exercise product does not map cleanly to these workflows because:

1. Exercises are attached to a course, often also a lesson and section.
2. Exercise access is enforced through course membership middleware.
3. Submissions are tied to groupmember and carry grading state, total score, reviewer, and feedback fields.
4. The UX assumes students, instructors, grading, due dates, and completion rather than respondents, publish/share, response settings, and collection workflows.
5. There is no public share-link, embeddable form, thank-you page, response export, response caps, or form lifecycle model.

Product Thesis

If ClassroomIO turns the current exercise question engine into a standalone Forms product, the platform gets a second major content primitive:

• Learning content for teaching and assessment.
• Response collection for school operations and feedback.

This expands ClassroomIO from LMS-only workflows into school operations workflows without throwing away the investment already made in the exercise system.

Differentiation Thesis

The goal is not to build another Google Forms. The value of ClassroomIO Forms is that the trigger, the respondent identity, and the consequence of a form all live inside the platform:

• Trigger: a lesson is completed, a course ends, a buyer clicks "Buy", a landing page is visited — the form appears at the right moment without anyone sending a link.
• Identity: authenticated respondents are already known (profile, course membership); no re-typing who someone is, and responses attach to the person's record.
• Consequence: a response can enroll a student, create a purchase request an admin approves, feed reviews onto a course landing page, or surface per-lesson feedback to the instructor.

A standalone form with a share link is table stakes. Every roadmap decision should be weighed against this loop, not against feature parity with Google Forms or Typeform.

Current-State Audit

Area	Current State	Reuse Value	Forms Gap
@cio/question-types	Shared package for question keys, answer payloads, render contracts, serializer, form state	High	Naming is exercise-centric, but architecture is already reusable
@cio/ui/custom/exercise-question	Full renderers for edit, take, preview, review, submission	High	Needs forms shell, branding, page layout, respondent UX
Question type coverage	12 types: radio, checkbox, textarea, true/false, short answer, numeric, fill blank, file upload, matching, ordering, hotspot, link	High	Some types are assessment-first; forms also need presentational blocks and contact fields
Exercise builder UI	Existing authoring flow with question reorder, media, templates, preview	Medium	Assumes course exercise editing and points/correctness
Submission summary UI	Already shows aggregated response charts and individual response replay	Medium	Needs forms response inbox, filters, export, respondent metadata
exercise table	Has courseId, lessonId, sectionId, isUnlocked, dueBy	Low	Needs standalone form ownership and publish lifecycle
question table	Bound to exerciseId only	Low	Needs form-owned question model or generalized questionnaire ownership
submission table	Has exerciseId, courseId, submittedBy, grading fields, feedback	Low	Needs form response model without grading assumptions
question_answer table	Stores answerData JSON and file-upload compatible payloads	Medium	Tied to groupMemberId; needs respondent abstraction
Course exercise routes	Course-member-only access and course-scoped RPC surface	Low	Needs public/authenticated share flows and org-level management
Exercise templates	Existing template metadata and questionnaire payload	Medium	Needs form template gallery and form-specific defaults

Data Sources Checked

• packages/question-types/README.md
• packages/question-types/src/exercise-types.ts
• packages/question-types/src/render-contract.ts
• packages/question-types/src/form-state.ts
• packages/question-types/src/question-type-capabilities.ts
• packages/question-types/tests/form-and-render-contract.test.ts
• packages/ui/src/custom/exercise-question/question-renderer.svelte
• packages/ui/src/custom/exercise-question/question-list.svelte
• packages/ui/src/custom/exercise-question/question-form-root.svelte
• apps/api/src/routes/course/exercise.ts
• apps/api/src/routes/course/submission.ts
• apps/api/src/services/exercise/exercise.ts
• apps/api/src/services/submission/submission.ts
• packages/utils/src/validation/exercise/exercise.ts
• packages/utils/src/validation/submission/submission.ts
• packages/db/src/schema.ts
• apps/dashboard/src/lib/features/course/api/exercise.svelte.ts
• apps/dashboard/src/lib/features/course/components/exercise/edit-mode.svelte
• apps/dashboard/src/lib/features/course/components/exercise/submissions/summary.svelte
• apps/dashboard/src/lib/features/course/components/exercise/submissions/individual.svelte

Primary Users

• School operators collecting enrollment, consent, and intake data.
• Teachers and tutors collecting student feedback and course reviews.
• Administrators running internal requests, surveys, and registration forms.
• Parents and students responding through public or authenticated form flows.

Goals

1. Launch a standalone Forms product without rebuilding the question engine from scratch.
2. Reuse the existing question type system and UI renderer stack as the shared questionnaire layer.
3. Support the highest-value school use cases first: feedback, review, enrollment, registration, and intake forms.
4. Support both internal authenticated forms and public shareable forms.
5. Ship response collection, response review, and export as first-class workflows.
6. Keep the exercise product working unchanged.

Non-Goals (v1)

• Full Typeform-style branching at question level.
• Payments inside forms.
• Complex computed fields or spreadsheet formulas.
• Workflow automation builder for multi-step approvals.
• E-signatures with legal compliance guarantees.
• PDF-to-form conversion.
• External app integrations beyond CSV export and email notifications.

Confirmed Product Decisions

1. Forms will be a new top-level product, not a hidden exercise mode inside courses.
2. The shared question engine remains the foundation for both Exercises and Forms.
3. Forms v1 will support draft, published, closed, and archived lifecycle states.
4. Forms responses are never graded. Points, correctness, grading state, and reviewer workflow do not belong in the forms domain.
5. Forms v1 supports one-page presentation only. One-question-per-page / multi-step mode is phase 2.
6. Public forms are required for enrollment and feedback use cases, but must include abuse protection.
7. Authenticated internal forms are also required for staff and student-only workflows.
8. File upload is supported in Forms, but public file upload must be guarded with rate limits and storage controls.
9. Existing exercise question types are reused first; new form-only block types can be added later.
10. The first implementation prioritizes reuse over perfect naming cleanup. Renaming exercise-question to a broader package is optional follow-up, not a blocker.
11. Binding is attachment-level, not form-level. A form is a reusable org-owned asset. A form_attachment binds a form to a platform context (course, lesson, landing page, checkout). Every response records which attachment it came through, so course pages show only their own responses while the form library shows all responses with a per-context breakdown. The attachment model is intentionally extensible: new platform features can add additional context_type values, per-context settings, and integration consequences in their own PRDs without reworking the core Forms product.
12. Per-attachment settings vs per-form settings: lifecycle windows (open/close dates), response limits, and one-response-per-respondent live on the attachment. Question content and identity settings (anonymous, collect name/email) live on the form. Editing a form's questions applies everywhere it is attached; question versioning is deferred. Future platform features may add new attachment contexts and consequence hooks (verified-email access grants, enrollment handoffs, etc.). Those integrations extend form_attachment and the runner/submission layer; they are specified in the consuming feature's PRD, not enumerated here. Precedence: for any integrated attachment, services read lifecycle, limit, and dedup fields from form_attachment only — never from the reusable form row. Legacy form.starts_at, form.ends_at, form.response_limit, and form.allow_multiple_responses columns may remain for bare share-link forms with no attachment, but must not be consulted when a response is tied to an attachment.
13. MVP ships two integration loops: (a) application → enrollment, including the purchase-request pipeline that replaces the hardcoded course payment modal, and (b) per-lesson pulse feedback. A landing-page form section and a reviews display block are part of MVP surface work.
14. Create-in-context authoring: every attachable surface (course settings, lesson, landing-page builder, checkout config) gets an "Attach a form" picker that lists existing org forms and offers "Create new", which opens the builder in a modal/drawer pre-seeded with a context-appropriate template. The form is saved to the org Forms library and attached in one motion. The Forms area is the library: manage forms, see where each is attached, view global results.
15. Default purchase-request form: every org is seeded with a default "Course purchase request" form attached to the checkout context of paid courses. It replaces the hardcoded fullname/email payment modal. Submit stores a pending response, then redirects to the course's paymentLink. Admins review pending purchase requests in the response inbox and approve to enroll the student. This also fixes the current theme-based paid path, which dead-ends on a "requires payment or invite" message with no purchase flow at all.
16. Public review display requires consent + curation: forms whose responses can be shown publicly (course reviews) must include a respondent consent checkbox, and only responses an admin has marked "approved for display" render on landing pages.
17. Author-side draft lifecycle stays (DRAFT → PUBLISHED → CLOSED → ARCHIVED). Respondent-side save-and-resume of a partially filled response is phase 2, as are edit-submitted-response and one-question-per-page mode. Anonymous public forms stay in v1.
18. Commercial model: free standalone, paid integrations. Free orgs get unlimited forms — creation, share-link collection, response inbox, analytics, CSV export — a full Google-Forms-style experience with no caps. What is gated behind paid plans is the platform integration layer: attaching forms to courses/lessons/landing pages/checkout, triggers, and consequences (approve→enroll, lesson pulse aggregation, landing-page form/reviews blocks). Self-hosted is ungated.
    • Checkout exception: the default purchase-request form works on free orgs for collection — buyers fill it, responses land in the inbox, and the admin enrolls manually (parity with today's manual flow, no regression). The one-click approve→enroll action is paid.
19. Permissions: org admins and teachers can create forms and manage/view/export responses. Students cannot create forms; they only respond.

Core Use Cases

UC-1: Student Feedback Form

• A school admin creates a feedback form.
• Shares a link after a course/session.
• Students submit ratings, free text, and optional anonymous feedback.
• Admin reviews aggregate charts and individual comments.

UC-2: Enrollment Form

• A school publishes an enrollment form publicly.
• Parent or student fills out personal data, preferences, and file uploads.
• Staff exports responses or reviews them inside the dashboard.

UC-3: Internal Review Form

• A school shares a private authenticated form with teachers or staff.
• Respondents can submit once or multiple times depending on settings.
• Admin sees response metadata, completion times, and exports data.

UC-4: Event Registration

• A team creates a registration form with attendance preferences and contact details.
• Form can close automatically at end date or after a response limit.
• Staff monitors response counts in real time.

Functional Requirements

FR-1: Form Lifecycle and Management

Admins can:

1. Create a new form from scratch or from a template.
2. Save a form as draft.
3. Publish a form and generate a shareable URL.
4. Close a form manually or automatically by schedule/limit.
5. Archive a form without deleting responses.
6. Duplicate an existing form.

Each form must support:

• Title
• Description
• Organization ownership
• Status: DRAFT | PUBLISHED | CLOSED | ARCHIVED
• Slug/share URL
• Optional start date
• Optional end date
• Optional response limit
• Optional success/thank-you message

FR-2: Form Builder

Reuse the existing exercise question builder patterns for:

1. Add question
2. Edit question
3. Reorder questions
4. Delete questions
5. Add images and videos to questions
6. Preview form
7. Save changes

Forms-specific builder additions:

1. Mark question as required/optional.
2. Toggle anonymous collection.
3. Response mode is one page in v1 (one question/page is phase 2).
4. Configure respondent fields:

• collect name
• collect email
• authenticated respondent only
• anonymous allowed

5. Configure submission rules (stored per-attachment where the form is attached to a context):

• one response per respondent
• multiple responses allowed
• save and continue later (phase 2)

FR-3: Sharing and Access

Forms v1 must support two access models:

1. Public link

• Anyone with the link can respond.
• Optional CAPTCHA / anti-bot protection.

2. Authenticated organization form

• User must sign in.
• Access may be limited to organization members.

Phase 2 access model:

3. Targeted private form

• User must sign in and be explicitly assigned or invited.
• Best fit for internal staff/student workflows.

FR-4: Respondent Experience

Respondents can:

1. Open the form through a share link or internal dashboard link.
2. See form title, description, branding, and instructions.
3. Complete questions across supported question types.
4. Upload files when allowed.
5. Submit the form.
6. See a thank-you screen after successful submission.

Phase 2 (cut from v1):

• Save draft and resume later for authenticated respondents.
• Edit own response when form setting allows it.

FR-5: Response Management

Admins can:

1. View all responses for a form.
2. Filter responses by date, completion status, and respondent metadata.
3. Open a single response and inspect answers question-by-question.
4. Export responses to CSV.
5. Delete a response when policy allows it.
6. Close the form to stop new responses while preserving existing ones.

FR-6: Response Analytics

Reuse and extend the current submission summary patterns to provide:

1. Total responses
2. Response completion rate
3. Response trend over time
4. Per-question aggregates for structured questions
5. Individual response replay for qualitative review

Out of scope for v1:

• AI summarization of comments
• Sentiment analysis
• Cross-form benchmarking

FR-7: Templates

Forms can be created from templates for common education use cases:

• student feedback
• course review
• enrollment
• parent intake
• event RSVP
• staff request

The existing template machinery should be reused where practical, but forms need their own template taxonomy and defaults.

FR-8: Platform Bindings and Attachments

A form can be attached to platform contexts through form_attachment records:

1. Course — e.g. a course review or end-of-course survey; responses surface in that course's context.
2. Lesson — per-lesson pulse feedback (1–2 questions) shown after lesson completion, aggregated per lesson so instructors see which lessons need work.
3. Landing page — a form section block on the org landing page (contact, waitlist, enrollment interest).
4. Checkout — the purchase-request form on paid courses (see FR-9).

Requirements:

1. Each attachable surface exposes an "Attach a form" picker with existing forms plus inline "Create new" (builder opens in a modal/drawer, pre-seeded with a context-matching template; saved to the library and attached in one motion).
2. Attachment carries its own settings: open/close window, response limit, one-response-per-respondent.
3. Responses record attachment_id; context views filter by attachment, the library view aggregates across attachments with a per-context breakdown.
4. Detaching a form preserves its responses.

Future platform features may add new attachment contexts and consequence hooks (verified-email access grants, enrollment handoffs, etc.). Those integrations extend form_attachment and the runner/submission layer; they are specified in the consuming feature's PRD, not enumerated here.

FR-9: Purchase-Request Pipeline (default org form)

1. Every org is seeded with a default "Course purchase request" form, auto-attached to the checkout context of paid courses.
2. Buyer flow: click Buy → fill the form → response stored with status PENDING → redirect to the course paymentLink → confirmation copy telling the buyer to complete payment.
3. Admin flow: pending purchase requests appear in the response inbox (and course context); admin approves a request → student is enrolled in the course; admin can also reject with an optional reason. On free plans the inbox shows the requests but the one-click approve→enroll action is gated (admin enrolls manually, as today).
4. Teacher/student notification emails are preserved from the current flow.
5. Admins can edit the default form's questions (org-wide) like any other form.
6. This replaces the hardcoded payment-modal.svelte two-field modal and gives theme-based landing pages a working paid path (they currently dead-end on a block message).

FR-10: Public Review Display

1. Review-type forms include a respondent consent checkbox ("you may display my review publicly").
2. Admins can mark individual responses "approved for display".
3. A landing-page reviews block renders approved responses only, filterable to a single course or org-wide.

Recommended Architecture

Principle

Reuse the question engine, not the course-bound entities.

Why not reuse exercise and submission directly?

Because the current schema and route model are tightly coupled to:

• courseId
• lessonId
• sectionId
• submittedBy -> groupmember
• grading state
• score totals
• instructor review workflow
• course membership authorization

Trying to bend those entities into a general forms product will create permanent product and technical debt.

Technical Design

1. Shared Layer to Reuse

These assets should remain shared across Exercises and Forms:

1. @cio/question-types
2. @cio/ui/custom/exercise-question
3. Answer payload serialization and codecs
4. File-upload answer payload model
5. Question renderer registry
6. Template questionnaire JSON shape
7. Submission summary chart primitives

2. New Domain Model

2.1 New form table

CREATE TABLE form (
  id UUID PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT gen_random_uuid(),
  organization_id UUID NOT NULL REFERENCES organization(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
  title VARCHAR NOT NULL,
  description TEXT,
  status VARCHAR NOT NULL DEFAULT 'DRAFT',
  slug VARCHAR NOT NULL,
  access_mode VARCHAR NOT NULL DEFAULT 'PUBLIC',
  response_mode VARCHAR NOT NULL DEFAULT 'ONE_PAGE',
  collect_name BOOLEAN NOT NULL DEFAULT false,
  collect_email BOOLEAN NOT NULL DEFAULT false,
  allow_anonymous BOOLEAN NOT NULL DEFAULT true,
  allow_multiple_responses BOOLEAN NOT NULL DEFAULT true,
  allow_edit_response BOOLEAN NOT NULL DEFAULT false,
  allow_save_draft BOOLEAN NOT NULL DEFAULT false,
  response_limit INTEGER,
  starts_at TIMESTAMPTZ,
  ends_at TIMESTAMPTZ,
  success_message TEXT,
  settings JSONB NOT NULL DEFAULT '{}',
  created_by_profile_id UUID,
  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT NOW(),
  updated_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT NOW(),
  UNIQUE (organization_id, slug)
);

2.2 Form questions and options

Recommended v1 approach:

• Create form_question and form_question_option tables mirroring the current exercise question structure.
• Keep the payload shape aligned with the shared question contracts.
• Do not attempt a risky generic cross-product table migration in v1.

Reason:

• It ships faster.
• It avoids destabilizing the existing exercise product.
• It still preserves maximum code reuse at the question-engine layer.

Longer-term option:

• Introduce a generalized questionnaire, questionnaire_question, and questionnaire_response model that both Exercises and Forms can use.

2.3 New form_attachment table

Binds a reusable form to a platform context and holds per-attachment settings. The form entity stays standalone; integration coupling is isolated here.

CREATE TABLE form_attachment (
  id UUID PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT gen_random_uuid(),
  form_id UUID NOT NULL REFERENCES form(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
  organization_id UUID NOT NULL REFERENCES organization(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
  context_type VARCHAR NOT NULL, -- 'COURSE' | 'LESSON' | 'LANDING_PAGE' | 'CHECKOUT'
  course_id UUID REFERENCES course(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
  lesson_id UUID REFERENCES lesson(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
  starts_at TIMESTAMPTZ,
  ends_at TIMESTAMPTZ,
  response_limit INTEGER,
  one_response_per_respondent BOOLEAN NOT NULL DEFAULT false,
  settings JSONB NOT NULL DEFAULT '{}',
  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT NOW()
);

Notes:

• Lifecycle windows, limits, and dedup rules live here (per-attachment), not on form.
• A share link is modeled as a link-type attachment or as the bare form URL; either way responses always resolve to at most one attachment.
• When a response records form_attachment_id, attachment fields are authoritative. Do not read timing/limit columns from form for that submission path.
• New context_type values, per-context settings, DB check constraints, and integration consequences (access grants, context-specific identity overrides) are introduced by consuming feature PRDs and implemented alongside those features — not as implicit scope inside this MVP document. The first such extension is the Events product (prd/events/README.md): EVENT context bindings, tenant/uniqueness invariants, form_response_access_grant, scanner-safe redemption routes, and token-to-session exchange.

2.4 New form_response table

CREATE TABLE form_response (
  id UUID PRIMARY KEY DEFAULT gen_random_uuid(),
  form_id UUID NOT NULL REFERENCES form(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
  form_attachment_id UUID REFERENCES form_attachment(id) ON DELETE SET NULL,
  organization_id UUID NOT NULL REFERENCES organization(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
  respondent_profile_id UUID,
  respondent_email VARCHAR,
  respondent_name VARCHAR,
  status VARCHAR NOT NULL DEFAULT 'SUBMITTED', -- purchase pipeline also uses PENDING | APPROVED | REJECTED
  approved_for_display BOOLEAN NOT NULL DEFAULT false,
  source VARCHAR DEFAULT 'link',
  submitted_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT NOW(),
  started_at TIMESTAMPTZ,
  completed_at TIMESTAMPTZ,
  metadata JSONB NOT NULL DEFAULT '{}'
);

2.5 New form_response_answer table

CREATE TABLE form_response_answer (
  id BIGSERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
  form_response_id UUID NOT NULL REFERENCES form_response(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
  form_question_id BIGINT NOT NULL REFERENCES form_question(id) ON DELETE CASCADE,
  answer_data JSONB,
  created_at TIMESTAMPTZ NOT NULL DEFAULT NOW()
);

3. API Surface

New org-level routes should be introduced rather than extending course exercise routes:

• GET /organization/:orgId/forms
• POST /organization/:orgId/forms
• GET /organization/:orgId/forms/:formId
• PUT /organization/:orgId/forms/:formId
• POST /organization/:orgId/forms/:formId/publish
• POST /organization/:orgId/forms/:formId/close
• GET /organization/:orgId/forms/:formId/responses
• GET /organization/:orgId/forms/:formId/responses/:responseId
• GET /forms/:slug
• POST /forms/:slug/respond

Optional authenticated draft routes:

• POST /forms/:slug/draft
• PUT /forms/:slug/draft/:draftId

4. Dashboard Experience

4.1 Admin UI

New dashboard areas:

1. Forms list page
2. Form builder page
3. Form response inbox
4. Form analytics page
5. Form settings/share page

4.2 Respondent UI

New public/internal form runner:

1. Load form by slug or secure token
2. Render via shared question components in take mode
3. Submit to forms response endpoint
4. Show thank-you state

5. Security and Abuse Controls

Public forms introduce risks the exercise system does not currently have.

Forms v1 must include:

1. Rate limiting on public submit endpoints.
2. Bot protection on public forms.
3. File upload limits by size/type/count.
4. Optional authenticated-only setting.
5. Slug collision prevention.
6. Safe export permissions restricted to authorized org users.

6. Reporting and Export

CSV export must include:

• response id
• submitted at
• respondent metadata
• one column per question
• file upload URLs or file identifiers

The dashboard must also support:

• total responses
• incomplete vs submitted
• per-question breakdown
• individual response view

Migration and Reuse Strategy

Phase 0: Shared Abstractions Cleanup

Low-risk cleanup before or during build:

1. Confirm shared packages remain exercise-agnostic in behavior.
2. Remove assumptions that all respondents are students.
3. Allow shared labels to accept forms-specific copy.
4. Extract any builder logic that currently depends on course page state.

Phase 1: Forms MVP

Ship:

1. Form CRUD
2. Draft/publish/close lifecycle
3. Public and authenticated forms
4. Shared question renderer reuse
5. Response collection
6. Response inbox
7. CSV export
8. Basic analytics
9. Attachment model + "Attach a form" picker with create-in-context (FR-8)
10. Purchase-request pipeline and default org form (FR-9)
11. Per-lesson pulse feedback attachment with per-lesson aggregation
12. Landing-page form section block and reviews display block with consent + curation (FR-10)
13. Templates for common school forms
14. Plan gating (free: unlimited standalone forms; paid: the integration layer)
15. Permission enforcement: admin/teacher-only form creation and response access

Phase 2: Education Workflow Expansion

Add:

1. Save-and-resume drafts (respondent side)
2. Edit submitted response
3. Section/page builder and one-question-per-page mode
4. Invite-only forms
5. Better branding and embed support
6. Question versioning for forms edited after collecting responses

Phase 3: Advanced Forms

Add:

1. Conditional logic
2. Hidden fields and prefill
3. Webhooks/integrations
4. AI summaries
5. Approval workflows

Delivery Estimate

Team Assumption

• 2 full-stack engineers
• 1 product designer shared part-time
• QA support during stabilization

Rough Timeline

1. Foundation and schema: 1-2 weeks
2. Builder and shared renderer integration: 2-3 weeks
3. Public/internal form runner and submission flow: 2 weeks
4. Response inbox, analytics, export: 2 weeks
5. Polish, abuse controls, QA, rollout: 1-2 weeks

Total

• 8-11 weeks for a strong MVP
• 12-16 weeks if v1 also includes save/resume, response editing, sections, and invite-only targeting

Key Risks

1. Direct schema reuse temptation

• Reusing exercise and submission directly will look faster initially but create major long-term coupling and UX compromises.

2. Public file upload abuse

• This needs careful limits and monitoring from day one.

3. Shared package naming drift

• The code can stay shared even if names remain exercise-centric for now, but this will become awkward if Forms grows quickly.

4. Builder assumptions

• Some existing builder state is currently tied to course/exercise pages and will need extraction.

5. Reporting expectations

• Users comparing the product to Google Forms or Typeform will expect polished analytics and exports even in early versions.

Resolved Questions

1. One-response-per-email enforcement — yes, as a per-attachment setting.
2. Forms on public site/subdomain contexts — yes; the landing-page form section and checkout attachment render on org public sites.
3. Section/page support — phase 2; v1 is one-page only.
4. Staff routing after submission — the purchase-request pipeline covers approve → enroll; general assignment/routing stays out of MVP.
5. Presentation modes / respondent drafts / response editing — one-question-per-page, respondent save-and-resume, and edit-submitted-response are all phase 2. Author-side DRAFT → PUBLISHED lifecycle is unaffected and stays in v1.
6. Commercial model — free tier gets unlimited standalone forms (no caps); the platform integration layer (attachments, triggers, consequences) is paid. Checkout exception: the default purchase-request form collects responses on free; one-click approve→enroll is paid. Self-hosted ungated.
7. Permissions — admins and teachers create forms and manage/view/export responses; students only respond.

Open Questions

1. Should public forms support anonymous file uploads in v1, or should file upload require authentication first?
2. Do we need respondent notification emails on submit in v1? (Admin/teacher emails exist for the purchase pipeline; existing ZeptoMail infra makes respondent confirmations cheap — leaning yes.)
3. Runner i18n: which locales must the public form runner support at launch?
4. PII/retention policy for enrollment/intake forms (minors' data, file uploads): retention window, deletion story, and what "anonymous" guarantees about stored metadata.

Success Metrics

Integration metrics (the differentiation thesis):

1. Percentage of forms attached to a platform context (course, lesson, landing page, checkout) vs bare share links — target majority attached.
2. Purchase-request conversion: Buy click → form submitted → approved → enrolled, measured end-to-end (baseline today is zero, since no purchase record exists).
3. Per-lesson pulse response rate vs a plain shared feedback link.
4. Number of orgs displaying approved reviews on a landing page.

Product/engineering metrics:

5. At least 3 high-value school workflows can be completed without abusing exercises as forms.
6. Form creation to publish time is under 10 minutes for common templates (create-in-context should make this under 2 minutes for attached forms).
7. Public form submission success rate stays above 98%.
8. At least 70% of question rendering code is shared with the exercise product.
9. Zero regressions in exercise creation, submission, and grading flows.

Bottom Line

It is realistic to build a strong Forms product on top of the current exercise implementation, but only if the reuse happens at the question engine layer, not by forcing form workflows into the existing course exercise and grading model.

The existing investment already removed the hardest part, which is rich question rendering and answer modeling. What remains is the product work that makes something feel like Google Forms or Typeform: publishing, sharing, respondent identity, response management, analytics, and public-safe submission infrastructure.