Review Stage 3: Judge — TFW-41 / Phase A¶

Mode: docs Evidence source: verify.md (all claims traced to actual file content)

Universal Checklist (6 items)¶

#	Check	Status	Evidence (from verify.md)
1	All TS AC items satisfied	✅	All 8 ACs verified against actual file content. Section number deviation documented and assessed as acceptable (heading text matches; number in example is illustrative).
2	No DoF conditions triggered	✅	All 4 DoF gates passed: no "Detailed Steps", no code in AC section, Principles Check present, no domain-specific instruction text.
3	All files claimed in RF §1 exist and match description	✅	3/3 files verified. Line counts match exactly. Change descriptions accurate.
4	RF structure complete (mandatory sections present)	✅	§1-§8 all present. §7 and §8 explicitly empty with rationale — valid per conventions.md §14 ("empty content is valid, absent section is not").
5	Observations present and structured	✅	RF §5: 2 observations in correct table format (File, Line(s), Type, Description).
6	Scope not exceeded	✅	0 new files, 3 modifications — within budget (max 8 new, max 14 total). No out-of-scope files modified.

#	Check	Status	Evidence
7	Content quality — clarity, accuracy, completeness	✅	TS.md: instruction text is precise and domain-neutral. HL.md Phase Dependencies: clear mermaid template + table. conventions.md: 4 anti-patterns match the one-line prose format of existing 19. No placeholders left unfilled.
8	Source verification — key claims traceable	✅	RF §2 key decisions trace to TS AC text. Fact Candidates cite execution observation and file scan. No unverified assertions.

Verifying that Phase A output enforces the principles declared in HL §7:

#	Principle	Enforced in Phase A output?	Assessment
1	Gates over guidelines	✅	The new TS template mandates structural sections (AC, DoF, Principles Check) — these are gates, not suggestions. Executor cannot skip them without the template being visibly incomplete.
2	Requirements, not implementation	✅	§5 AC section has explicit instruction: "Describe WHAT, not HOW." §6 Technical Guidance explicitly marked "Reference material, not instructions." DoF gate rejects code in AC section.
3	Verify against fact, not plan	N/A for Phase A	Phase A is template modification; the pre-TS gate (reading RF N-1) is Phase B's responsibility. Not applicable here.
4	Enforce or remove	✅	Principles Check table forces coordinators to map every HL §7 principle to an AC or explicitly mark N/A. Makes "decorative text" structurally impossible.
5	Executor as engineer, not copier	✅	Technical Guidance section explicitly says "Executor MAY deviate with justification in RF." AC section has no code. Together these structurally prevent copy-paste.
6	Domain-agnostic by default	✅	Template instructions use `{curly braces}`. Verify.md confirmed: no "code", "CSS", "API" literals in instruction text. DoF gate 4 confirms this.

#	Severity	Issue	Disposition
1	Info	AC-1 example code block shows `## 4. Acceptance Criteria` but template has `## 5.`	Documented by executor in Key Decision #1. Acceptable: TS does not state "number must be 4" as a verifiable criterion. No AC criterion violated.
2	Info	AC-3 TS criterion says `"NOT implementation instructions. Executor decides HOW."` but template says `"Reference material, not instructions. Executor MAY deviate."`	RF Key Decision #3 explains: "Executor MAY deviate" captures the same intent and is stronger. Semantically equivalent.

No blocking issues. Both items are informational — the executor pre-documented both with justification.

judge.md — TFW-41 / Phase A review | 2026-04-20