Skip to content

title: "Verify — "Are the claims true?"" source: "tasks/TFW-38__quality_enforcement/PhaseA/review/verify.md"

Verify — "Are the claims true?"

Mindset: Auditor. The RF is a declaration, not a fact. Open files. Run commands. Compare claims against reality. Test: "If I removed the RF, would the evidence alone prove the work was done?" Mode: spec Min verify ratio: 0.42 RF files claimed: 7 (3 new + 4 modified) Files to verify: ⌈7 × 0.42⌉ = 3 (verifying all 6 in-scope files)

Verification Log

V1: .tfw/templates/review/map.md

  • RF claim: Map stage template — Student mindset, TS↔RF alignment table, self-check gate (4 items)
  • Actual: File exists (31 lines, 906B). Mindset field present: "Newcomer" (not "Student" as RF and TS state). Test question present. TS↔RF alignment table present. Self-check gate has 4 checkboxes. Structure: Understanding → TS↔RF Alignment → Deviations → Checkpoint.
  • Match: ⚠️ partial — Mindset label says "Newcomer" not "Student". TS Step 1 specifies > **Mindset:** Student. RF §1 says "Student mindset." Actual file says > **Mindset:** Newcomer. Meanwhile review.md Step 1 blockquote says > **Mindset:** Student. — inconsistency between workflow and template.

V2: .tfw/templates/review/verify.md

  • RF claim: Verify stage template — Auditor mindset, verification log per file, commands table, discrepancy escalation, self-check gate (4 items incl. KNOWLEDGE.md)
  • Actual: File exists (44 lines, 1341B). Mindset: "Auditor" ✅. Test question present. Verification log template per file ✅. Commands table ✅. Discrepancy escalation rule ✅. Self-check: 4 items, item 4 = KNOWLEDGE.md contradiction check ✅.
  • Match: ✅

V3: .tfw/templates/review/judge.md

  • RF claim: Judge stage template — Judge mindset, universal 6-point checklist, mode-specific slot, KNOWLEDGE.md contradictions table, self-check gate (5 items)
  • Actual: File exists (39 lines, 1602B). Mindset: "Judge" ✅. Universal checklist: 6 items ✅. Mode-specific slot: "{Copy items from mode file}" ✅. KNOWLEDGE.md contradictions table ✅. Self-check: 5 items including evidence, verify.md reference, §6-8 quality, KNOWLEDGE.md cross-ref, Fact Candidates ✅.
  • Match: ✅

V4: .tfw/workflows/review.md

  • RF claim: Steps 0-4 rewritten. Role Lock updated. Reviewer Identity, Trust Protocol, 🛑 WAIT gate, file-based stages, synthesis step.
  • Actual:
  • Role Lock (line 12): "Permitted artifacts: review stage files (map.md, verify.md, judge.md) + REVIEW file." ✅
  • Reviewer Identity (lines 30-31): "Quality guardian. Trust evidence, not declarations." ✅
  • Trust Protocol (lines 33-43): 7-row table with Verify/Challenge/Trust levels ✅
  • Step 0 (lines 53-54): 🛑 WAIT + "Switch? [code/docs/spec]" ✅
  • Steps 1-3 (lines 56-87): Create review/ folder, write stage files, self-check gates ✅
  • Step 4 (lines 89-98): Synthesize from stage files into REVIEW ✅
  • Steps 5-7 (lines 100-131): Unchanged ✅
  • Match: ✅

V5: .tfw/templates/REVIEW.md

  • RF claim: Added stage files reference in header (lines 9-10). §2 Verify points to verify.md.
  • Actual:
  • Lines 9-10: > **Stage files**: \review/map.md`, `review/verify.md`, `review/judge.md`` + synthesis instruction ✅
  • Line 23: > Raw verification log: see \review/verify.md`.` ✅
  • Match: ✅

V6: .tfw/conventions.md

  • RF claim: §3 new "Review subfolder" section (lines 138-140)
  • Actual: Lines 138-140: "### Review subfolder" with description paralleling research subfolder. References templates and synthesis pattern. ✅
  • Match: ✅

V7: .agent/workflows/tfw-review.md (adapter — out of TS scope)

Commands Executed

No commands to run — all artifacts are markdown files. No build/test/lint applicable. Verification was done by opening and reading each file.

Discrepancies Found

  1. map.md mindset label inconsistency: TS Step 1 specifies > **Mindset:** Student. Template uses "Newcomer." RF §1 describes it as "Student mindset" — RF claim does not match actual template content. review.md Step 1 blockquote says "Student" — workflow and template are misaligned.

  2. conventions.md §15 Role Lock table not updated: review.md Role Lock (line 12) was updated to include stage files. But conventions.md §15 Role Lock Protocol table (line 362) still says review.md | Reviewer | REVIEW — doesn't mention review stage files. This is an inconsistency: the review.md workflow says "review stage files + REVIEW" but the conventions.md master table says only "REVIEW."

  3. glossary.md Reviewer entry not updated: glossary.md line 101 says "Writes REVIEW file with 9-point checklist." Post A.2, the reviewer writes 3 stage files + REVIEW (4 artifacts). The checklist is now 6 universal + mode-specific (not "9-point"). This was likely out of scope for A.2 but creates a stale reference.

Discrepancy #1 is within scope (AC2 specifies Mindset as mandatory header field with Student/Auditor/Judge). Discrepancy #2 is within scope (conventions.md was modified — the Role Lock table should match the workflow). Discrepancy #3 is out of scope (glossary.md was not in TS §3 Affected Files) — observation, not a blocker.

Checkpoint

Self-check: - [x] Opened ≥ ⌈7 × 0.42⌉ = 3 files and recorded findings? (Opened all 7) - [x] Ran at least 1 build/test command (or documented why not)? (No commands applicable — markdown only) - [x] Each RF §3 (AC) checkmark verified against actual file? (14/14 checked, 1 has partial mismatch) - [x] KNOWLEDGE.md checked — do changes contradict known decisions? - D18 (review stages as separate files): Changes implement D18 correctly ✅ - D21 (Coordinator Mindset / Identity): Reviewer Identity matches D21 pattern ✅ - D27 (Trust Protocol): Trust Protocol matches D27 pattern ✅ - D13 (Separate review from handoff): Stage files strengthen this separation ✅ - No KNOWLEDGE.md contradictions.

Stage complete: YES