title: "Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"" source: "tasks/TFW-41__execution_quality_gates/PhaseB/review/judge.md"

Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"¶

Mindset: Judge. You have the evidence from Verify. Now rule on quality. Every ✅ needs proof. Every ❌ needs a specific finding. Test: "Would I stake my reputation on this passing production review?" Mode: docs Verify findings: verify.md

Universal Checklist¶

#	Check	Status	Evidence
1	DoD met?	✅	verify.md: all 6 AC items confirmed in actual files. All gates are mandatory steps, not suggestions (verified in-file language).
2	Philosophy aligned	✅	HL §7 P1 (Gates over guidelines): all insertions are imperative steps, not "consider" language. P3 (Verify against fact): Pre-TS Gate explicitly says "Read RF (actual output), not TS (planned output)." P5 (Executor as engineer): Execution Loops force self-checking, not copying.
3	Tech debt documented	✅	RF §5 has 2 observations in table format with file, line, type, and description. Both are genuine structural fragility findings (step-label collision, alpha-numeric branch labeling).
4	Style & standards	✅	All insertions follow existing workflow prose style (imperative, second-person, blockquote for role notes). File naming follows conventions §4. No §4 "Detailed Steps" or §5 "Acceptance Criteria" old-template references found (per RF §4 scan).
5	Observations collected	✅	2 observations, both qualify: review.md Step 0 collision and plan.md alpha-numeric label fragility are real structural issues that will bite future executors. Quality bar met.
6	RF completeness (§6-8)	✅	§6 Fact Candidates: 2 entries (both real). §7 Strategic Insights: present, correctly "No strategic insights" (execution-only task, no human domain input). §8 Diagrams: present, correctly "No diagrams." All sections present.

Mode-Specific Checklist (docs)¶

#	Check	Status	Evidence
7	Content quality	✅	Gate language is unambiguous and imperative. Pre-RF Gate: "Open `.tfw/templates/RF.md`. Read all section headings before writing anything." — no wiggle room. Execution Loops: defines the annotation, gives example, states the independent-AC rule. ONB answer protocol: "Do not decide on behalf of the stakeholder." All gates meet TS §7 DoF requirement: no "suggestion" or "recommendation" language.
8	Source verification	✅	All TS cross-references (DR2, DR3, D6, D9, D10, D11 from HL §4) are traceable to research decisions in the master HL §10 research decisions table. The `[depends: AC-X]` annotation mechanism was specified in Phase A's TS template — verified: conventions.md §14 anti-pattern "TS contains ready-made implementation" is present (Phase A deliverable).

Deviation Assessment: HL §7 Principles check as paragraph, not checklist item¶

TS AC-5 states: "checklist item." Executor placed it as a body paragraph in Step 4 Judge. This is a minor form deviation. Substantive test: does the paragraph enforce the same behavior as a checklist item would?

The text is mandatory (no conditional language).
It names the exact artifact to read (TS §3 Principles Check table).
It names the exact location to verify against (RF §3).
It specifies the escalation condition (principle violation ≠ AC miss).

Verdict on deviation: The paragraph form is functionally equivalent to a checklist item and is arguably more readable in a flowing step. The TS AC-5 gate condition ("Read review.md → Principles check exists in Judge step") is fully satisfied. Deviation accepted — no impact on gate effectiveness.

Contradictions with KNOWLEDGE.md¶

#	Knowledge item	RF claim	Contradiction?
—	No KNOWLEDGE.md exists in this project	N/A	No applicable knowledge items

Checkpoint¶

Self-check: - [x] Every checklist item has evidence (not just ✅/❌)? - [x] Referenced verify.md findings in DoD assessment? - [x] Checked RF §6-8 for presence AND quality? - [x] KNOWLEDGE.md: N/A — project has no KNOWLEDGE.md yet? - [x] Fact Candidates from RF reviewed — both are real, no challenge needed?

Stage complete: YES