Make requirements reviewable
A documented matrix gives product, engineering, security, and operations one object to review. People can challenge a role, resource, or action before it is buried in implementation details.
Guide
Coding permissions before the team agrees on the access model turns requirements into scattered implementation details. Document the intended roles, resources, actions, and conditions first, then build from a shared decision.
A documented matrix gives product, engineering, security, and operations one object to review. People can challenge a role, resource, or action before it is buried in implementation details.
The access model describes what should be allowed. Code describes how the application enforces it. Keeping those layers separate makes it easier to change implementation without losing the original decision.
A blank condition or unclear scope is useful feedback. It shows where the team still needs to decide whether access is tenant-scoped, relationship-based, field-specific, or unconditional.
List the jobs people perform and the resources they need to reach. Avoid starting with framework-specific role names or copying the current application's permission table.
Record the actions that matter, then add scope, ownership, group, approval, or field conditions. This is where “admin” often becomes a smaller and more useful model.
Walk through normal workflows and exceptions with the people who own them. Confirm that each grant has a reason and that similar decisions are represented consistently.
Only after sign-off should engineers map the approved model to application roles, checks, policy rules, and tests. Keep the documented model as the reference for future changes.
This is not a request to maintain a second copy of every implementation detail forever. The goal is to keep the product decision visible: who needs access, to what, for which action, and under what condition. Once the model is agreed, code and tests can enforce it without becoming the only place where the decision exists.