trace-first-starter

ONB — TFW-25: Values & Principles Consolidation

Date: 2026-04-04 Author: Executor (AI) Status: 🟠 ONB — Awaiting answers Parent HL: HL-TFW-25 TS: TS-TFW-25

1. Understanding

Consolidate TFW’s dispersed values/principles/facts into a clean 3-tier hierarchy: (1) README Values = 8 philosophical beliefs, (2) KNOWLEDGE §0 = 7 battle-tested design principles, (3) knowledge/ = 18 verified facts (pruned from 29). Remove redundant KNOWLEDGE sections (§3 legacy resolved items, §4 tech stack). Absorb P10-P13 engineering patterns into conventions.md. Net result: fewer duplicate concepts, clearer separation of “beliefs” vs “design rules” vs “implementation facts.”

2. Entry Points

File What changes
.tfw/README.md L217-242 §Values rewrite (5 → 8 items)
KNOWLEDGE.md L8-26 §0 prune (14 → 7 P# items)
KNOWLEDGE.md L115-137 §3 prune (18 resolved Legacy items)
KNOWLEDGE.md L152-160 §4 remove entirely
KNOWLEDGE.md §5 Update fact counts
knowledge/convention.md Remove F4, F6, F8-F10, F12 → keep 6, renumber
knowledge/process.md Remove F2, F3, F8-F10 → keep 5, renumber
.tfw/conventions.md New §11 “Design Rules” subsection for P10-P13
README.md task board L135 Status update

3. Questions (blocking — cannot proceed without answers)

# Question Answer
— No blocking questions. TS is fully specified with exact content for all changes. —

4. Recommendations (suggestions, not blocking)

  1. TS Step 3 line references are off by 1-2 lines from actual KNOWLEDGE.md. The TS says “Remove lines 115-137” but actual content starts at L113 (first Legacy table row). I’ll match by content, not line numbers. No impact on outcome.

  2. TS Step 8 placement. TS says “insert into §11 or create new subsection nearby. Executor decides.” Conventions.md has §11 = “Quality Standard”, not “Scope Budgets” (that’s §6). I’ll insert “Design Rules” as a new subsection under §11 “Quality Standard (no compromises)” since these are quality-adjacent design constraints. Alternative: create a standalone §11.1. I’ll use the cleaner approach: add it as a subsection within §11.

  3. philosophy.md F4 — TS says “compress” but doesn’t specify how. F4 content (structural enforcement > format enforcement) is being promoted to README Values as “Structural Enforcement.” I’ll leave F4 as-is since the README will reference it, and the fact has unique user quote content not in the README. TS §philosophy says “compress F4 (will be in README values)” — the simplest compression is to shorten the fact text and add “→ see also README §Values” cross-ref.

5. Risks Found (edge cases, potential issues not in TS)

  1. P# gap numbering may confuse future agents. After removing P4, P6, P10-P14, the surviving set is P1, P2, P3, P5, P7, P8, P9. Agents reading “P5” might wonder about the missing P4/P6. TS explicitly acknowledges this (“P# numbering preserved, gaps acceptable, historical refs stay valid”). Low risk — accepted.

  2. Cross-references to removed P# items in other task HLs. The Source column in old task HLs references P10, P11, etc. These are historical artifacts in closed tasks. TS acknowledges (“Historical task HL refs to removed P# remain valid as source links”). No action needed.

6. Inconsistencies with Code (spec vs reality)

  1. TS Step 8 says “insert into §11 or create §11.1” but conventions.md uses ## headings numbered 1-15 (## 6) Scope Budgets, ## 11) Quality Standard). There is no §X notation — the TS should reference ## 11). Minor labeling difference, no functional impact. I’ll add a ### Design Rules under ## 11) Quality Standard.
*ONB — TFW-25: Values & Principles Consolidation 2026-04-04*
This site is open source. Improve this page.