Yes — you need **dedicated UI affordances** for “Verdict + DeltaVerdict + Evidence” because the interaction model is fundamentally different from a classic “vulnerability list” UI.
But you do **not** necessarily need a whole new top‑level product area on day one.

The right approach is usually:

1. **Embed the experience where decisions happen** (build/release/PR gates).
2. Add **one dedicated “Compare / Delta” screen** (a focused view) reachable from those contexts.
3. Introduce a **top-level “Assurance/Audit” workspace only if you have compliance-heavy users** who need cross-project oversight.

Below is a concrete way to implement both options and when to choose each.

---

## When a dedicated UI is warranted

A dedicated UI is justified if at least **two** of these are true:

* You have **multiple repos/services** and security/compliance need to see **fleet-wide deltas**, not just per build.
* You need **approval workflows** (exceptions, risk acceptance, “ship with waiver”).
* You need **auditor-grade artifact browsing**: signatures, provenance, replay, evidence packs.
* Developers complain about “scan noise” and need **diff-first triage** to be fast.
* You have separate personas: **Dev**, **Security**, **Compliance/Audit** — each needs different default views.

If those aren’t true, keep it embedded and light.

---

## Recommended approach (most teams): Dedicated “Compare view” + embedded panels

### Where it belongs in the existing UI

Assuming your current navigation is something like:

**Projects → Repos → Builds/Releases → Findings/Vulnerabilities**

Then “DeltaVerdict” belongs primarily in **Build/Release details**, not in the global vulnerability list.

**Add two key entry points:**

1. A **status + delta summary** on every Build/Release page (above the fold).
2. A **Compare** action that opens a dedicated comparison screen (or tab).

### Information architecture (practical, minimal)

On the **Build/Release details page**, add a header section:

* **Verdict chip**: Allowed / Blocked / Warn
* **Delta chip**: “+2 new exploitable highs”, “Reachability flip: yes/no”, “Unknowns: +3”
* **Baseline**: “Compared to: v1.4.2 (last green in prod)”
* **Actions**:

  * **Compare** (opens dedicated delta view)
  * **Download Evidence Pack**
  * **Verify Signatures**
  * **Replay** (copy command / show determinism hash)

Then add a tab set:

* **Delta (default)**
* Components (SBOM)
* Vulnerabilities
* Reachability
* VEX / Claims
* Attestations (hashes, signatures, provenance)

#### Why “Delta” should be the default tab

The user’s first question in a release is: *What changed that affects risk?*
If you make them start in a full vuln list, you rebuild the noise problem.

---

## How the dedicated “Compare / Delta” view should work

Think of it as a “git diff”, but for risk and provenance.

### 1) Baseline selection (must be explicit and explainable)

Top of the Compare view:

* **Base** selector (default chosen by system):

  * “Last green verdict in same environment”
  * “Previous release tag”
  * “Parent commit / merge-base”
* **Head** selector:

  * Current build/release
* Show **why** the baseline was chosen (small text):
  “Selected last prod release with Allowed verdict under policy P123.”

This matters because auditors will ask “why did you compare against *that*?”

### 2) Delta summary strip (fast triage)

A horizontal strip with only the key deltas:

* **New exploitable vulns:** N (by severity)
* **Reachability flips:** N (new reachable / newly unreachable)
* **Component changes:** +A / −R / ~C
* **VEX claim flips:** N
* **Policy/feed drift:** policy changed? feed snapshot changed? stale?

### 3) Three-pane layout (best for speed)

Left: **Delta categories** (counts)

* New exploitable vulns
* Newly reachable
* Component adds/removes
* Changed versions
* Claim changes
* Unknowns / missing data

Middle: **List of changed items** (sorted by risk)

* Each item shows: component, version, CVE (if applicable), exploitability, reachability, current disposition (VEX), gating rule triggered

Right: **Proof / explanation panel**

* “Why is it blocked?”
* Shows:

  * the **policy rule** that fired (with rule ID)
  * the **witness path** for reachability (minimal path)
  * the **claim sources** for VEX (vendor/distro/internal) and merge explanation
  * links to the exact **envelope hashes** involved

This is where “proof-carrying” becomes usable.

### 4) Actionables output (make it operational)

At the top of the item list include a “What to do next” section:

* Upgrade component X → version Y
* Patch CVE Z
* Add/confirm VEX claim with evidence
* Reduce reachability (feature flag, build config)
* Resolve unknowns (SBOM missing for module A)

This prevents the compare screen from becoming yet another “informational dashboard.”

---

## If you do NOT create any new dedicated view

If you strongly want zero new screens, the minimum acceptable integration is:

* Add a **Delta toggle** on the existing Vulnerabilities page:

  * “All findings” vs “Changes since baseline”
* Add a **baseline selector** on that page.
* Add an **Attestations panel** on the Build/Release page for evidence pack + signature verification.

This can work, but it tends to fail as the system grows because:

* Vulnerability list UIs are optimized for volume browsing, not causal proof
* Reachability and VEX explanation become buried
* Auditors still need a coherent “verdict story”

If you go this route, at least add a **“Compare drawer”** (modal) that shows the delta summary and links into filtered views.

---

## When you SHOULD add a top-level dedicated UI (“Assurance” workspace)

Create a dedicated left-nav item only when you have these needs:

1. **Cross-project oversight**: “show me all new exploitable highs introduced this week across org.”
2. **Audit operations**: evidence pack management, replay logs, signature verification at scale.
3. **Policy governance**: browse policy versions, rollout status, exceptions, owners.
4. **Release approvals**: security sign-off steps, waivers, expiry dates.

### What that workspace would contain

* **Overview dashboard**

  * blocked releases (by reason)
  * new risk deltas by team/repo
  * unknowns trend
  * stale feed snapshot alerts
* **Comparisons**

  * search by repo/build/tag and compare any two artifacts
* **Attestations & Evidence**

  * list of verdicts/delta verdicts with verification status
  * evidence pack download and replay
* **Policies & Exceptions**

  * policy versions, diffs, who changed what
  * exceptions with expiry and justification

This becomes the home for Security/Compliance, while Devs stay in the build/release context.

---

## Implementation details that make the UI “work” (avoid common failures)

### 1) Idempotent “Compute delta” behavior

When user opens Compare view:

* UI requests DeltaVerdict by `{base_verdict_hash, head_verdict_hash, policy_hash}`.
* If not present, backend computes it.
* UI shows deterministic progress (“pending”), not “scanning…”.

### 2) Determinism and trust indicators

Every compare screen should surface:

* Determinism hash
* Policy version/hash
* Feed snapshot timestamp/age
* Signature verification status

If verification fails, the UI must degrade clearly (red banner, disable “Approved” actions).

### 3) Baseline rules must be visible

Auditors hate “magic.”
Show baseline selection logic and allow override.

### 4) Don’t show full graphs by default

Default to:

* minimal witness path(s)
* minimal changed subgraph
* expand-on-demand for deep investigation

### 5) Role-based access

* Developers: see deltas, actionables, witness paths
* Security: see claims sources, merge rationale, policy reasoning
* Audit: see signatures, replay, evidence pack

---

## Decision recommendation (most likely correct)

* Build **embedded panels** + a **dedicated Compare/Delta view** reachable from Build/Release and PR checks.
* Delay a top-level “Assurance” workspace until you see real demand from security/compliance for cross-project oversight and approvals.

This gives you the usability benefits of “diff-first” without fragmenting navigation or building a parallel UI too early.

If you share (even roughly) your existing nav structure (what pages exist today), I can map the exact placements and propose a concrete IA tree and page wireframe outline aligned to your current UI.