VisualBase POC and Platform Decision

VisualBase vs. .NET 10 + ABP for the Inventory and Production System

02 September 2026 Decision before product development

Current Recommendation

Build the new product with .NET and ABP

Development has not started. Use .NET 10 LTS and ABP as the foundation. Reconsider VisualBase only if it passes the critical tests.

01

Screens are only the first test

The POC showed screens and workflows. It did not show that stock stays correct when users act at the same time or a request fails.

02

Rules span several places

Rules in SQL procedures, views, configuration tables, and the platform engine are harder to review as one change.

03

Source code alone is not independence

NCGR must prove it can build, release, restore, and upgrade the platform without the vendor.

Why this recommendation

Why not VisualBase for this product?

The POC showed fast screen delivery. It did not prove the controls needed for an inventory and production system of record.

Stock must remain correct

The POC did not test two people reserving or issuing the same stock at once, or recovery after a failed request.

Rule changes need one review path

Behavior can span platform settings, rule tables, SQL views, and procedures. A complete change must be traceable and tested.

Releases need proof

The recording showed quick edits, but not a reviewed build, automated regression tests, promotion, or safe rollback.

Ownership is more than source

The stakeholder reports 20+ services and multiple UIs. A late source handover does not prove NCGR can maintain the whole stack.

Method

What the evidence does and does not show

Direct Observation

Seen in the POC and recording

Menus, modules, Quick Table, Formula Editor, approvals, generated forms, and SQL Studio. [S4][S11]

Vendor-Documented

How the vendor describes the platform

Runtime screen generation, SQL-centered customization, and rules and behavior stored in a database repository. [S1][S2]

Stakeholder-Reported

Source-code promise

Based on the provided context, the vendor is expected to hand over the no-code platform source after project completion; legal scope and buildability require verification.

Not Proven

Still to be tested

The review did not prove an independent build, automated testing, security, recovery, integration APIs, monitoring, or the exact deployed version.

The 80-minute recording shows a development workflow. It is not a source audit or a production-readiness test.

Positive Finding

What VisualBase did well in the POC

VisualBase produced forms and workflow quickly in the recorded session.

Proven

Visible business scope

Eleven modules were visible, including inventory, procurement, finance, planning, and operations.

Proven

Fast form and workflow setup

Quick Table, fields, approvals, and a generated form were assembled in the recorded session.

Documented

Arabic and RTL interfaces

Bilingual and RTL support is described, but complete NCGR product behavior was not acceptance-tested.

Proven

Central object editor

Fifteen editor tabs were visible; some behavior is also edited in SQL Studio.

Partial

Formula feedback

The formula editor has Test and Validate actions. A full automated test suite was not shown.

Partial

Fast changes

Changes can be quick. NCGR would still need a controlled review and release process.

Source: NCGR VisualBase environment [S4] and development UX recording dated 27 August 2026 [S11].

Recorded Evidence

What the development recording showed

Quick Table showing SQL DDL for the LeaveRequest table

≈ 40:00

A table definition was previewed

Quick Table previewed SQL CREATE TABLE statements and audit columns.

Formula Editor with Test and Validate actions

≈ 50:00

A field formula was tested

The editor offered Test and Validate while the formula was being written.

SQL Studio showing direct editing of an approval stored procedure

≈ 72:30

An approval procedure was edited

SQL Studio showed direct editing of an approval stored procedure.

Finding: Fast delivery was visible. Code review, automated regression tests, controlled release, and rollback were not shown.

Critical Gaps

What remains unproven

Two users, one stock balance

No test showed whether two simultaneous issues or reservations can overuse the same stock.

Repeatable tests

Test and Validate give local feedback. A repeatable test suite for rules, SQL, and workflows was not shown.

Controlled release

The session did not show how changes are reviewed, packaged, moved between environments, or rolled back.

Database access control

Database privileges and safe execution of dynamic SQL were not reviewed.

Monitoring and recovery

Load, monitoring, backup restoration, and disaster recovery targets were not tested.

Integration APIs

The review did not establish versioned APIs or safe handling of duplicate and retried messages.

Assessment Rule

Not shown does not mean impossible. It means NCGR needs a test before relying on it.

Engineering

Where business rules live

VisualBase — observed and described

Generated UI & Workflow

Runtime Engine / Metadata Interpreter

Rule Tables / Events / SQL Expressions

Procedures / Views / Shared Database

Rules can live in the platform engine, configuration records, and SQL objects.

.NET + ABP — Proposed Model

Web / Mobile / Integration Clients

ABP APIs / Authorization / Application Services

Typed C# Domain Modules & Invariants

SQL Server / Outbox / Read Models

NCGR would write product rules in reviewed C# modules. SQL Server would still store data and enforce transactions and constraints.

Sources: direct observation and vendor material [S1][S2][S4]; official ABP capabilities [S6].

Vendor handover

Source code helps only if NCGR can use it

Reported handover plan

Stakeholders expect platform source after completion; the signed terms were not reviewed.

Deployment work reportedly spans 20+ services and multiple UIs. Files alone do not prove NCGR can support the full estate.

1. Inventory and rightsGet the service and UI inventory, dependency map, full source, licenses, and permanent operating and modification rights.

2. Build and restoreAn NCGR-selected team builds and deploys every service and frontend, then restores the data and configuration.

3. Fix a real edge caseTrace a failure across services, add a test, release a fix, monitor it, and roll back without vendor help.

4. Upgrade and transferUpgrade a dependency and have another supplier maintain the stack independently.

Acceptance condition

Prove independent operation of the complete service estate in staged milestones, before final handover. [S5][S12]

Vendor Lock-in

Where vendor dependence can remain

Legal Rights

Can NCGR operate, change, and assign maintenance to another team?

Reduced Conditionally

Build and Upgrade Tooling

Can NCGR build and upgrade without the vendor?

Not Proven

Proprietary Architecture

Applications depend on the vendor-specific engine and configuration model.

High

Data and Logic Model

Moving away would require rebuilding rules as well as moving data.

High

Knowledge and Skills

A new team must learn the engine and its extension points.

High

Conclusion

Source handover may improve exit rights. Real independence requires successful build, release, and support without vendor help.

Decision request

Critical gates remain unproven for VisualBase

Decision Gate	VisualBase	.NET + ABP	Conclusion
Functional Delivery Speed	Proven	More setup	Clear VisualBase advantage
Domain and Concurrency Correctness	Not Proven	Must test	Critical gate
Testing and Release Governance	Not Proven	Must implement	Critical gate
Security, Operations, and Recovery	Not Proven	Must implement	Critical gate
Ownership and Exit	Handover unverified	Own code from start	VisualBase remains conditional
Platform Decision	Do Not Start	Recommended Option	Approval requested via ADR

Recommendation

Request approval for .NET 10 LTS and ABP as the foundation. Reconsider VisualBase only after every critical gate passes a repeatable test.

Decision Requested

Approve .NET 10 LTS and ABP for the new inventory and production product