REVIEW — TFW-38 / Phase A: Review Restructure + Full Enforcement Chain¶

Date: 2026-04-14 Author: Reviewer Verdict: ✅ APPROVE Review Mode: spec RF: RF Phase A TS: TS Phase A

1. Map¶

Executor restructured the TFW review workflow from a linear 7-step process into a 4-stage cognitive flow (Map → Verify → Judge → Decide) with 3 output-type modes (code/docs/spec), created mode files with differential checklists, and closed the enforcement chain across 4 workflows (handoff §6-8 mandate, research Findings Map, plan.md knowledge citation, conventions anti-patterns). A post-approval addition introduced min_verify_ratio: 0.42 as a configurable parameter with Pattern A enforcement, plus Config Sync Registry entries and adapter re-syncs.

2. Verify¶

#	What was checked	Result	Evidence
1	`review.md` has Step 0 + Steps 1-4 4-stage flow	✅	File verified: Step 0 (line 30), Step 1 Map (41), Step 2 Verify (51), Step 3 Judge (69), Step 4 Decide (84). Steps 5-7 post-verdict intact
2	`REVIEW.md` template §1-§7 structure	✅	File verified: §1 Map (L12), §2 Verify (L16), §3 Judge (L23), §4 Verdict (L35), §5 Tech Debt (L47), §6 Traces (L55), §7 Fact Candidates (L64). Review Mode field in header (L6)
3	3 mode files exist in `.tfw/workflows/review/`	✅	`code.md` (16 lines), `docs.md` (13 lines), `spec.md` (13 lines) — all verified. No universal checklist duplication — mode files start at item #7
4	`handoff.md` Phase 1 KNOWLEDGE.md check	✅	Line 36: `Inconsistencies between HL/TS/KNOWLEDGE.md and actual code` — KNOWLEDGE.md added
5	`handoff.md` Phase 3 §1-§8 enumeration	✅	Lines 73-82: all 8 sections explicitly listed. Line 82: `Never omit §6-8. Empty content is acceptable ("No X."); absent section is not.`
6	`research/base.md` Step 6 Findings Map	✅	Line 91: `Findings Map — visualize research findings (root cause, hypothesis trees, priority matrices). If no visualization relevant: "No findings map."` Items renumbered 6-8 correctly
7	`plan.md` Step 3 knowledge citation	✅	Line 36: `Check KNOWLEDGE.md — scan Architecture Decisions, known conventions, and prior task findings. If any are relevant to this task, cite them in HL §4 (Phase Context). If none apply: write "No applicable knowledge items."`
8	`conventions.md` §14 new anti-patterns	✅	Lines 343-346: 4 anti-patterns present (reviewer no-verify, executor §6-8 skip, researcher no-map, coordinator no-cite)
9	`PROJECT_CONFIG.yaml` review config	✅	Lines 59-61: `default_mode: code`, `min_verify_ratio: 0.42`
10	`config.md` Config Sync Registry	✅	Lines 88-93: `review` section with `default_mode` and `min_verify_ratio` entries mapping to review.md
11	review.md `min_verify_ratio` Pattern A table	✅	Lines 60-62: Pattern A Limits table with default (0.42), type (Hard), config key (`min_verify_ratio`)
12	Mode files reference `min_verify_ratio`	✅	All 3 mode files include `min_verify_ratio` (default: 42%) in their Verify Actions, with escalation-on-discrepancy clause

All 15 RF-claimed files verified (3 new + 12 modified). No discrepancies found — escalation not triggered.

3. Judge¶

#	Check	Status	Evidence
1	DoD met? (all TS acceptance criteria)	✅	All 10 AC items verified against actual files in §2 above
2	Philosophy aligned (matches HL design philosophy)	✅	P1 (Workflow > Template): enforcement in workflows, not just templates. P2 (Map/Verify/Judge/Decide): 4 stages with mindset annotations. P3 (Mode, not checklist): 3 mode files carry differential items. P5 (Naming Creates Behavior): stage names are 1-syllable active verbs
3	Tech debt documented	✅	3 observations in RF §5 — all are genuine edge cases (§-ref fragility, Review Mode as new metadata, step 11 gap)
4	Style & standards	✅	Template structure follows English-first convention (D29). Workflow <1200 words. Mode files are concise (~100-170 words each)
5	Observations collected	✅	3 observations, all typed (style, naming), quality-filtered — no filler
6	RF completeness (§6-8 present)	✅	§6 Fact Candidates: 1 item (user preference for ratios). §7 Strategic Insights: 1 item (Pattern A discipline). §8 Diagrams: "No diagrams." — all present
7	Analytical quality	✅	review.md stage flow is logically coherent: Map (comprehension) → Verify (evidence) → Judge (assessment) → Decide (synthesis). Mode selection at Step 0 prevents loading unnecessary items. Universal/differential split eliminates N/A noise
8	Source attribution	✅	RF decisions reference ONB §4.2 (HTML comment), ONB §4.4 (step numbering). HL decisions D1, D8-D9, D11-D12, D14-D17 traceable to RES

4. Verdict¶

✅ APPROVE

All 10 acceptance criteria verified against actual file contents. The 4-stage review structure is well-designed — cognitive mode transitions (Map→Verify→Judge→Decide) with explicit mindset annotations prevent the single-pass trust pattern identified in RES1 F4. The mode-differential split keeps review.md under 1200 words while providing domain-appropriate checklists. The min_verify_ratio addition follows Pattern A correctly with Config Sync Registry integration. The enforcement chain closes all 4 identified gaps (P1-P3, P5-P6 from HL §2).

The one item worth noting: RF lists 15 files touched (3 new + 12 modified), which exceeds the TS-stated 10 (3 new + 7 modified) — the 5 extra are adapter re-syncs. This is acceptable because adapter sync is a mechanical consequence of workflow modification, documented in config.md §Adapter Sync.

If REVISE — items to fix:¶

(N/A)

If REJECT — fundamental issues:¶

(N/A)

5. Tech Debt Collected¶

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

#	Source	Severity	File	Description	Action
TD-93	RF TFW-38/A obs. #1	Low	`.tfw/workflows/review.md` L112	Step 7 references "REVIEW §6" for traces markers — if future template restructure changes §6 numbering, this will break. Consider using section name instead of number	→ backlog
TD-94	RF TFW-38/A obs. #3	Low	`.tfw/workflows/handoff.md` L73	Step number jumps from 10 to 12 — step 11 missing. Pre-existing issue, not introduced by this change	→ backlog

Obs. #2 (Review Mode as new metadata in REVIEW template header) — filtered out. This is intentional new functionality, not a drift point. The field serves the same purpose as other header metadata (Date, Author, Verdict).

6. Traces Updated¶

[x] README Task Board — status updated to 📚 KNW (A)
[ ] HL status — Phase A complete, Phase B pending
[ ] PROJECT_CONFIG.yaml — no seq increment needed (multi-phase, not closed)
[x] TECH_DEBT.md — TD-93, TD-94 appended
[ ] tfw-docs: {Pending}
[ ] tfw-knowledge: {Pending — 2 FC from RF + 2 FC from REVIEW}

7. Fact Candidates¶

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

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

#	Category	Candidate	Source	Confidence
1	convention	TFW adapter sync produces 5 additional file changes per workflow modification (5 adapter copies). Budget calculations should account for this mechanical overhead when counting total files modified	RF TFW-38/A §1, TS §3 discrepancy	High
2	philosophy	The "explicit N/A" pattern ("No diagrams.", "No fact candidates.") has been deployed across 3 workflows (handoff §6-8, research Findings Map, plan.md knowledge citation) — emerging as a universal TFW pattern for converting silent skips into conscious, reviewable traces	HL-TFW-38 S8, verified in handoff.md L79-82, research/base.md L91, plan.md L36	High

Source format: Use reference patterns (e.g., [RF TFW-18](../../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 — TFW-38 / Phase A: Review Restructure + Full Enforcement Chain | 2026-04-14