REVIEW — {PREFIX}-{N} / Phase {X}: {Title}

Date: YYYY-MM-DD Author: {reviewer} Verdict: ✅ APPROVE / 🔄 REVISE / ❌ REJECT Review Mode: {code / docs / spec} RF: RF Phase {X} TS: TS Phase {X} Stage files: review/map.md, review/verify.md, review/judge.md This file is a synthesis of stage findings. Reference stage files for raw evidence.

---

1. Map

{2-3 sentence summary of understanding: what was done, key decisions, scope}

2. Verify

#	What was checked	Result	Evidence

Raw verification log: see review/verify.md. If verification was limited: state what could NOT be verified.

3. Judge

#	Check	Status	Evidence
1	DoD met? (all TS acceptance criteria)	✅/❌	{specific}
2	Philosophy aligned (matches HL design philosophy)	✅/❌
3	Tech debt documented	✅/❌
4	Style & standards	✅/❌
5	Observations collected	✅/❌
6	RF completeness (§6-8 present)	✅/❌

4. Verdict

{✅ APPROVE / 🔄 REVISE / ❌ REJECT}

{Rationale referencing §2 Verify and §3 Judge evidence}

If REVISE — items to fix:

1. {specific item to fix}

If REJECT — fundamental issues:

1. {issue requiring HL/TS rework}

5. Tech Debt Collected

Source format: Use reference patterns (compilable_contract.md §2).

#	Source	Severity	File	Description	Action
1	RF observations	Low/Med/High	file.py	{description}	→ backlog / → next phase

6. Traces Updated

• [ ] README Task Board — status updated
• [ ] HL status — updated if phase completes
• [ ] project_config.yaml — initial_seq incremented if needed
• [ ] Other project files — checked for stale info
• [ ] tfw-docs: {Applied — updated Sections X, Y / N/A (minor)}
• [ ] tfw-knowledge: {Applied / N/A / Deferred to batch}

7. Fact Candidates

Cognitive mode: Pure reporting — record factual observations without interpretation or synthesis.

Scope: Reviewer-observed project patterns discovered during the review process. Good: "18% clients = 80% revenue (Pareto)", "stakeholder: find problem clients first" NOT fact candidates: "project uses git", implementation details (→ Observations → tfw-docs), or reviewer analysis/opinions (those belong in §4 Verdict rationale).

Human-Only Test: would this fact be unknown without the human saying it? If an agent can discover it by reading code or running commands — it's not a fact candidate. These are NOT verified facts. They become facts after /tfw-knowledge consolidation.

Before writing: review the conversation history. The human's messages are the primary source.

#	Category	Candidate	Source	Confidence
1	{category}	{what you learned}	{where from}	High/Medium/Low

Source format: Use reference patterns (e.g., [RF TFW-18](../../tasks/TFW-18__knowledge_consolidation/RF__PhaseB__knowledge_quality.md), D24). See compilable_contract.md §2.

Categories (open list): environment, process, stakeholder, constraint, convention, domain, context, risk, philosophy

---

REVIEW — {PREFIX}-{N} / Phase {X}: {Title} | YYYY-MM-DD