---

title: "Map — "What was done?"" source: "tasks/TFW-40__state_separation/review/map.md"

---

Map — "What was done?"

Mindset: Experienced newcomer. You arrived after someone else's work. Understand before you judge. No opinions yet — only comprehension. Test: "Can I explain what was done to someone who hasn't read the RF?" RF: RF Phase B TS: TS Phase B Mode: spec

Understanding

The executor normalized file naming across .tfw/ — renamed PROJECT_CONFIG.yaml → project_config.yaml (via git mv) and TOPIC_FILE.md → topic_file.md, then performed a global find-replace across 28 source files + 8 adapter copies (36 total). Added §10.4 (YAML File Naming Convention) to conventions.md codifying lower_snake_case for config/state YAML and non-artifact templates. Version bumped to 0.8.4 with a combined CHANGELOG entry covering both Phase A and Phase B changes, plus migration notes for downstream projects. Scope was expanded beyond the original TS (.tfw/ only) to include README.md, KNOWLEDGE.md, and docs/scripts/gen_docs.py + tests — per coordinator's ONB answer ("Битые ссылки = баг, а не tech debt").

TS ↔ RF Alignment

TS requirement	RF claim	Aligned?
AC1: grep -r "PROJECT_CONFIG" .tfw/ returns 0	RF §3 ✓, only §10.4 negative example remains ("not PROJECT_CONFIG.yaml")	✅
AC2: grep -r "TOPIC_FILE" .tfw/ returns 0	RF §3 ✓	✅
AC3: .tfw/project_config.yaml exists, old doesn't	RF §3 ✓, git mv executed	✅
AC4: .tfw/templates/topic_file.md exists, old doesn't	RF §3 ✓, git mv executed	✅
AC5: §10.4 naming convention in conventions.md	RF §3 ✓, lines 329-339	✅
AC6: Version = 0.8.4 in VERSION, project_config, template	RF §3 ✓	✅
AC7: CHANGELOG has v0.8.4 with migration notes	RF §3 ✓	✅
AC8: 55/55 gen_docs tests pass	RF §3 ✓	✅
AC9: Adapter workflows synced	RF §3 ✓, grep .agent/ = 0	✅
AC10: README.md and KNOWLEDGE.md refs updated	RF §3 ✓	✅
AC11: Historical task artifacts NOT modified	RF §3 ✓	✅

Deviations from TS

• TS scope was .tfw/ (19+ files). Executor expanded to include README.md, KNOWLEDGE.md, gen_docs.py, test_gen_docs.py, and .agent/ adapter copies. This is a legitimate scope expansion via Q&A (ONB Q1 answer) — not a deviation.
• TS Step 1 suggested Rename-Item, executor used git mv instead (RF Decision D1). Better approach — preserves git history.
• No out-of-scope work detected.

Checkpoint

Self-check: - [x] Read RF §1-§5 completely? - [x] Read TS DoD and matched each item to RF §3? - [x] Read HL §7 Principles — can I state the design philosophy? - [x] Read ONB — were blocking questions resolved?

Stage complete: YES