Skip to content

REVIEW — TFW-38 / Phase B: Knowledge Citation Table

Date: 2026-04-15 Author: Reviewer Verdict: ✅ APPROVE Review Mode: docs RF: RF Phase B TS: TS Phase B 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

The executor implemented a mandatory Knowledge Citation cascade across the Coordinator→Executor→Reviewer pipeline. Five canonical files modified: HL.md template (§7.2), ONB.md template (§7), verify.md template (Citations Verified section + checkpoint update), plan.md (Step 3 item 4: full PV scan instruction), and handoff.md (Phase 1: citation-reading sub-bullet). Two adapter resyncs (tfw-plan.md, tfw-handoff.md). Total: 7 files, 0 new. Key decisions documented: full replacement of plan.md item 4 (per coordinator), sub-bullet grouping in handoff.md (per coordinator), preserve+extend for verify.md checkpoint (executor rationale).

2. Verify

# What was checked Result Evidence
1 HL.md §7.2 Knowledge Citations (L103-113) 4-column table, PV scan instructions, bootstrap note — all match TS Step 2
2 ONB.md §7 Knowledge Citations (L32-43) 5-column table, executor read-confirm pattern, NEW row support, bootstrap note
3 verify.md Citations Verified (L33-42) + Checkpoint (L50-52) ⚠️ Section correct. Checkpoint: old KNOWLEDGE.md bullet preserved + new citation bullet added (TS said "replace"). Executor documented rationale — net improvement
4 plan.md Step 3 item 4 (L36-41) Full replacement with PV scan. Glossary reference, priority tiers, HL §7.2 target
5 handoff.md Phase 1 step 2 (L36-38) Citation-reading sub-bullet before inconsistency check. Multi-line format
6 tfw-plan.md adapter Byte-identical to canonical plan.md
7 tfw-handoff.md adapter Byte-identical to canonical handoff.md

Raw verification log: see review/verify.md. One minor discrepancy in V3 (verify.md checkpoint preserve vs replace) — documented deviation, defensible enhancement. No escalation needed.

3. Judge

# Check Status Evidence
1 DoD met? (all TS acceptance criteria) All 9 AC items verified against actual files (V1-V7)
2 Philosophy aligned (matches HL design philosophy) P6 Knowledge Gate enforced as cascade. D28/D39 naming unified. S8 explicit N/A applied
3 Tech debt documented RF §5: 2 style observations, genuine, low severity
4 Style & standards Blockquote format consistent, table columns per spec, section numbering clean
5 Observations collected 2 observations, no filler
6 RF completeness (§6-8 present) §6: 2 fact candidates. §7: explicit "No strategic insights." §8: explicit "No diagrams."
7 Content quality (docs mode) Instructions clear, role-specific, actionable. PV scan priority tiers specified. N/A cases handled
8 Source verification (docs mode) RF decisions traced to ONB Q&A. Fact candidates cite user answers with quotes

4. Verdict

✅ APPROVE

All 9 TS acceptance criteria met. The Knowledge Citation cascade is correctly implemented across all 3 roles (Coordinator scans PV Index → HL §7.2; Executor reads HL §7.2 → ONB §7; Reviewer verifies links → verify.md). One minor deviation (verify.md checkpoint: preserve+extend vs replace) is a documented improvement that maintains backward compatibility — the contradiction check and citation verification serve different purposes and both have value.

The executor's work is clean, well-documented, and structurally sound. Fact Candidates capture genuine user decision patterns (full replacement preference, semantic grouping preference).

5. Tech Debt Collected

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

# Source Severity File Description Action
1 RF TFW-38/B obs #1 Low .tfw/templates/HL.md §7.2 uses ### (H3) — consistent now but heading hierarchy needs attention if future §7.3 added → backlog
2 RF TFW-38/B obs #2 Low .tfw/workflows/handoff.md Citation instruction uses multi-line bullet with leading spaces — visually different from sibling single-line bullets. May complicate future string-based edits → backlog

Quality filter applied: both observations are genuine maintainability items, not filler. Low severity — neither causes functional issues.

6. Traces Updated

  • [x] README Task Board — status updated (🟢 RF → 🔍 REV → 📚 KNW)
  • [ ] HL status — N/A (master HL covers all phases)
  • [ ] PROJECT_CONFIG.yaml — initial_seq: no increment needed (no new task created)
  • [ ] Other project files — checked for stale info (none found)
  • [x] tfw-docs: Applied — KNOWLEDGE.md §1 (Templates row), §1 D41-D46, §2 (TFW-38/A, A.2, B), §3 (4 legacy entries). conventions.md §3 Knowledge Input Sections. TD-99.
  • [ ] tfw-knowledge: Applied — F20 (workflow classes), F21 (explicit N/A) → philosophy.md. 14 candidates scanned, 2 accepted, 12 rejected (Human-Only + dedup)

7. Fact Candidates

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

# Category Candidate Source Confidence
1 process Knowledge Citation is the first TFW mechanism that spans all 3 artifact-producing roles (Coordinator, Executor, Reviewer) as an interconnected cascade rather than independent per-role sections. Previous cross-role patterns (e.g., Observations → TECH_DEBT.md) are sequential handoffs, not cascaded references. RF TFW-38/B, HL §4 Phase B design rationale Medium

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


REVIEW — TFW-38 / Phase B: Knowledge Citation Table | 2026-04-15