Skip to content

title: "Map — "What was done?"" source: "tasks/TFW-41__execution_quality_gates/PhaseB/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__PhaseB__workflow_gates.md TS: TS__PhaseB__workflow_gates.md Mode: docs

Understanding

The executor modified three TFW workflow files (handoff.md, plan.md, review.md) to insert structural gates at critical handoff points: a Pre-RF Gate (executor must open template before writing RF), Execution Loops (dependency-based self-check via [depends: AC-X] annotations), a Coordinator ONB answer protocol (options instead of decisions when source is absent), a Pre-TS Gate (coordinator reads RF of latest phase before writing next TS), an HL §7 Principles check in the Judge step, and Session Naming Step 0 in all three workflows. No new files were created; two ONB/RF files were created as part of the task lifecycle itself. The TS was not restructured (Phase A's work), only workflow prose was amended.

A non-trivial structural collision was handled: review.md already had a "Step 0: Select Review Mode", which required renumbering all original steps +1 to fit Session Naming at Step 0. Similarly, inserting Pre-TS Gate as 3b in plan.md's multi-phase branch required renumbering former 3b/4b/5b to 4b/5b/6b.

TS ↔ RF Alignment

TS requirement RF claim Aligned?
AC-1: Pre-RF Gate in handoff.md, before Create RF step handoff.md step 11 = Pre-RF Gate; step 12 = Create RF ✅
AC-2: Pre-TS Gate in plan.md, multi-phase branch, references RF not TS plan.md step 3b = Pre-TS Gate, explicitly says "Read RF (actual output), not TS" ✅
AC-3: Execution Loops in handoff.md Phase 2, depends annotation trigger handoff.md step 8 paragraph = Execution Loops with [depends: AC-X] trigger ✅
AC-4: Coordinator ONB answer protocol in handoff.md handoff.md step 5 blockquote = ONB answer protocol ✅
AC-5: HL §7 Principles check in review.md Judge phase review.md Step 4 body = HL §7 Principles check paragraph ✅
AC-6: Session Naming Step 0 in all 3 workflows All 3 workflows have Step 0 with correct naming format ✅

Deviations from TS

  1. review.md step renumbering (documented, justified): Original Step 0 (Select Review Mode) became Step 1. All subsequent steps shifted +1. Deviation from TS which anticipated Session Naming as the only Step 0 — but the TS did not account for the pre-existing Step 0. Resolution is structurally sound and documented in RF §2 Decision 1.

  2. plan.md step renumbering (documented, justified): Pre-TS Gate inserted as 3b required former 3b→4b, 4b→5b, 5b→6b. RF §2 Decision 2 documents.

  3. HL §7 Principles check as paragraph, not checklist item (documented): TS AC-5 said "checklist item." Executor placed it as a body paragraph in Step 4 Judge. RF §2 Decision 6 justifies: same phase, same mindset, less structural overhead. Reviewable deviation — to be evaluated in Judge.

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? (No blocking questions in ONB)

Stage complete: YES