Skip to content

REVIEW — TFW-41 / Phase B: Workflow Gates

Date: 2026-04-20 Author: Reviewer (AI) Verdict: ✅ APPROVE Review Mode: docs RF: RF__PhaseB__workflow_gates.md TS: TS__PhaseB__workflow_gates.md 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 modified three workflow files (handoff.md, plan.md, review.md) — no code, no new files outside the task lifecycle. Six gates were inserted: Pre-RF Gate (open template before writing), Execution Loops ([depends: AC-X] trigger), Coordinator ONB answer protocol (options not decisions), Pre-TS Gate (read RF N-1 before writing TS N), HL §7 Principles check in Judge, and Session Naming Step 0 in all three workflows. Two structural collisions were encountered and resolved: review.md already had a Step 0 (resolved via +1 renumbering of all steps), and plan.md's alpha-numeric multi-phase branch required cascade renumbering after insertion of new step 3b. Both deviations are documented and justified in RF §2.

2. Verify

# What was checked Result Evidence
V1 handoff.md: Step 0, ONB blockquote, Execution Loops, Pre-RF Gate at line 87 before line 89 ✅ All 4 insertions found at exact positions; line count = 161 as claimed
V2 plan.md: Step 0, Pre-TS Gate at step 3b, explicit "RF not TS" language, correct step renumbering ✅ All insertions confirmed; line count = 153 as claimed
V3 review.md: Step 0, former Step 0 → Step 1, HL §7 Principles check in Step 4 body ✅ All confirmed; RF delta claim "+7" is off by 1 (should be +8) — clerical, §4 count of 153 is correct

verify.md: no structural discrepancies. One trivial arithmetic error in RF §2 (line delta for review.md).

3. Judge

# Check Status Evidence
1 DoD met? (all 6 AC items) ✅ verify.md V1-V3: all AC-1 through AC-6 confirmed in actual files. TS §7 DoF "gate as suggestion" condition: not triggered — all insertions are imperative steps.
2 Philosophy aligned ✅ P1 (Gates over guidelines): all insertions use imperative language ("Open", "Read", "Verify", "Do not"). P3 (Verify against fact): Pre-TS Gate explicitly enforces RF-over-TS reading. P5 (Executor as engineer): Execution Loops force self-check, not linear copying.
3 Tech debt documented ✅ RF §5: 2 observations — review.md Step 0 collision (naming), plan.md alpha-numeric label fragility (naming). Both are structural risks for future executors. Quality bar met.
4 Style & standards ✅ Blockquote for coordinator protocol (role-attributed, non-disruptive). Inline definition in Execution Loops (self-contained). Paragraph for Principles check (matches Judge prose flow). Consistent with existing workflow style.
5 Observations collected ✅ 2 observations in correct table format with File/Line/Type/Description. Both are real issues, not filler.
6 RF completeness (§6-8) ✅ §6 Fact Candidates: 2 entries (real). §7 Strategic Insights: correctly empty (no human domain input during execution). §8 Diagrams: correctly absent (text insertions). All sections present.
7 Content quality ✅ Gate language is unambiguous and non-bypassable. "Do not decide on behalf of the stakeholder" (AC-4). "Read RF (actual output), not TS (planned output) — these differ" (AC-2). "If a principle was mapped to an AC but that AC failed — flag as a principle violation" (AC-5). No softening language found.
8 Source verification ✅ All TS cross-references (DR2, DR3, D6, D9, D10, D11) traceable to HL §10 research decisions table. [depends: AC-X] mechanism sourced from Phase A TS template — confirmed present in conventions.md §14.

Deviation accepted: AC-5 specified "checklist item"; executor implemented as body paragraph. Substantively equivalent — mandatory, specific, unambiguous. Form difference with zero behavioral impact.

TD-105 closed: RF §4 explicitly confirms: "No §4 Detailed Steps or §5 Acceptance Criteria references found in any workflow (confirmed by scan)." Residual risk from Phase A is resolved.

4. Verdict

✅ APPROVE

All six AC gates are present in actual files, in mandatory (not suggestive) form, at the correct positions. verify.md confirms 100% file coverage with no structural discrepancies. The one form deviation (paragraph vs checklist item for AC-5) is functionally equivalent and accepted. The one clerical error (review.md line delta) does not affect gate integrity. The executor handled two unspecified structural collisions (step-number conflicts) with documented, sound decisions. Tech debt is real, quality-filtered, and properly reported.

Phase B DoD items 6–12 (HL §5) confirmed fulfilled. Phase B is complete.

5. Tech Debt Collected

# Source Severity File Description Action
TD-106 RF TFW-41/B obs. #1 Low .tfw/workflows/review.md review.md had a pre-existing "Step 0: Select Review Mode" — the only TFW workflow with a non-standard Step 0 before Session Naming. Any future executor inserting a Step 0 into this file will face the same renumbering trap. Consider adding a comment: "Step 0 is reserved for Session Naming; Select Review Mode is Step 1 by design." → Backlog
TD-107 RF TFW-41/B obs. #2 Low .tfw/workflows/plan.md Multi-phase branch uses alpha-numeric step labels (3b, 4b, 5b...). Any future insertion in this branch requires cascade renumbering. Consider replacing with prose-named steps (e.g., "Pre-TS Gate step", "Create phase subfolder step") to avoid position-dependent labels. → Backlog

6. Traces Updated

  • [ ] README Task Board — set PhaseB status to 📚 KNW
  • [ ] TECH_DEBT.md — append TD-106, TD-107; close TD-105
  • [ ] tfw-docs: Pending (run after this REVIEW)
  • [ ] tfw-knowledge: Pending (Fact Candidates exist in RF §6 — 2 items)

7. Fact Candidates

# Category Candidate Source Confidence
1 convention TFW workflow Step 0 is reserved for Session Naming. Any workflow that previously used Step 0 for another purpose (e.g., review.md's "Select Review Mode") creates an insertion conflict. The canonical fix is to renumber pre-existing Step 0 to Step 1 and document the reason. Future TFW updates should audit all workflows for Step 0 conflicts before adding Session Naming. Review observation (verify.md V3) High
2 process The [depends: AC-X] annotation mechanism (introduced in Phase A TS template, enforced in Phase B Execution Loops) creates a self-enforcing dependency graph within a single TS. This is structurally analogous to how research stages enforce cross-stage dependency (DR7: Extract needs Gather). The same "structural enforcement > procedural instruction" principle applies at both research and execution levels. Review synthesis of HL §11 S3 + RF TFW-41/B Medium

REVIEW — TFW-41 / Phase B: Workflow Gates | 2026-04-20