Request:
Implement dynamic dependency handling within Alma "Add Row" dialog boxes to support Proactive Error Prevention.

The interface should only present users with valid input field combinations, ensuring that logically impossible configurations cannot be constructed.

While this request originated from a ticket regarding the Exclude Process Types from Publishing dialog, it identifies a broader need for platform-wide consistency in how Alma handles field relationships.

Functional Gap:
Currently, the "Exclude Process Types from Publishing" dialog treats [Process Type] and [In Process Type] as independent fields.

• The Problem: Users can construct combinations that the system knows are invalid.

• The Result: The user only discovers the error after attempting to save, leading to repetitive data entry and administrative frustration.

• The Solution: The [In Process Type] field should be disabled or hidden unless [Process Type] is set to “In Process.”

Case for Consistency:
Development has noted that proactive validation in similar mapping tables (e.g., Exclude Libraries and Locations) was a specific implementation for Primo. However, from a user perspective, when dialog interactions vary unpredictably, it creates:

• increased cognitive load on staff
• slower task execution
• training overhead
• avoidable support tickets and escalation
• reduced confidence in system predictability.

Standardizing cross-field validation across the platform would align the Publishing workflow with other high-functioning Alma areas, such as:

• Exclude Libraries and Locations from Available on Shelf Facet: Dropdown options change based on the selected Library.
• Restricted Search Groups: Parameters change based on the selected Name.
• Search Profiles: Scope fields appear/disappear based on Scope Type.
• Opening Hours: Available fields shift dynamically based on Record Type.

Validation should be applied consistently wherever field relationships exist across the platform.