REVIEW — TFW-41 / Phase C: Research Templates — Embedded Dimensional Analysis¶
Date: 2026-04-20 Author: Reviewer (AI) Verdict: ✅ APPROVE Review Mode: docs RF: RF__PhaseC__research_templates.md TS: TS__PhaseC__research_templates.md Stage files:
review/map.md,review/verify.md,review/judge.mdThis file is a synthesis of stage findings. Reference stage files for raw evidence.
1. Map¶
Phase C of TFW-41 adds embedded dimensional analysis to three research stage templates (Gather, Extract, Challenge) and the research workflow. The executor created three new sections (## Dimensions, ## Configuration Space, ## Consistency Check) placed before ## Findings in each template, with explicit cross-stage dependency (Extract column headers reference Gather dimension names by placeholder), a connecting thread in research/base.md Step 5, and a maintainer-only terminology origin note in conventions.md §14.1. Zero new files, 5 modifications. All 5 TS acceptance criteria are addressed in RF §3 with AC-level self-checks.
2. Verify¶
| # | What was checked | Result | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | gather.md — ## Dimensions section before ## Findings; no "recommended" positive instruction; checkpoint item |
✅ | 40 lines, section at L5, Findings at L19, prohibition at L9, checkpoint at L36 (verify.md V1) |
| 2 | extract.md — ## Configuration Space before ## Findings; Gather column refs; no evaluation; overflow protection |
✅ | 42 lines, section at L5, {[D1](../../../knowledge-index.md#architecture-decisions) from Gather} headers create structural dependency, L9 no-eval instruction, L17-19 overflow rule + example (verify.md V2) |
| 3 | challenge.md — ## Consistency Check before ## Findings; pairwise instruction; incompatible pairs; surviving configs; unexpected survivors |
✅ | 47 lines, all sub-elements present at verified line numbers (verify.md V3) |
| 4 | research/base.md — dimensional analysis thread in Step 5; graceful degradation; no GMA terms |
✅ | Thread at L62 (1 paragraph block); grep "Zwicky" = 0 results; 131 actual lines (verify.md V4) |
| 5 | conventions.md — §14.1 origin note; 5 terms mapped; maintainer-only scope; §15 numbering preserved |
✅ | ### 14.1 Terminology Origin at L391; 5-row table at L395-401; scope note at L403; §15 at L405 (verify.md V5) |
| 6 | DoF: No "Zwicky"/"GMA"/"morphological" in researcher-facing files | ✅ | grep -r "Zwicky" .tfw/templates/research/ → 0; grep "Zwicky" base.md → 0 (verify.md Commands) |
One minor discrepancy: RF §1 reports base.md grew 129 → 132 lines; actual file is 131 lines. Content is correct; metadata error only. Not a DoF trigger.
3. Judge¶
| # | Check | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DoD met? (all TS acceptance criteria) | ✅ | All 5 ACs verified against actual file content (verify.md V1-V5). All TS §7 DoF conditions avoided. |
| 2 | Philosophy aligned (HL §7 Principles) | ✅ | P1: structural gate via column-header dependency (not a checkbox). P5: workflow thread is connecting logic, not instructions. P6: zero methodology names in researcher-facing text. |
| 3 | Tech debt documented | ✅ | RF §5: 1 genuine observation — briefing.md lacks forward reference to Dimensions section. Specific, actionable, Phase D candidate. |
| 4 | Style & standards | ✅ | TFW heading/naming conventions followed; ### 14.1 is consistent with existing subsection style; §15 numbering preserved. |
| 5 | Observations collected | ✅ | 1 observation, quality-filtered: not filler — a real discovery gap with a concrete fix path. |
| 6 | RF completeness (§6-8) | ✅ | §6 Fact Candidates present (rationale given); §7 Strategic Insights present (rationale given); §8 Diagrams present (cross-stage flow diagram adds explanatory value). |
| 7 | Content quality (docs mode) | ✅ | Instructions are actionable and use heuristics over mandates (S6 applied). Inline example anchors abstract overflow rule. Graceful degradation appears consistently across all 3 templates. |
| 8 | Source verification (docs mode) | ✅ | All key claims independently verified: grep results, line numbers, section numbering. |
4. Verdict¶
✅ APPROVE
All 5 acceptance criteria verified against actual file content — no discrepancies in content. The executor's key architectural choices are sound and internally consistent:
-
Cross-stage dependency mechanism (verify.md V2):
{[D1](../../../knowledge-index.md#architecture-decisions) from Gather}column header placeholders create a structural enforcement gate — a researcher who skips Dimensions has nothing to put in Configuration Space columns. This is the HL §7 S7 principle ("cross-stage dependencies are natural enforcement") correctly realized. -
Graceful degradation (RF §2 Decision 4): Extending AC-4's workflow-level instruction to matching italic notes in all three templates is a sound extension within executor authority — templates may reinforce workflow guidance, AC-4 only required it in the workflow thread, and no DoF condition was triggered.
-
§14.1 as subsection (map.md Deviation 3): Pre-announced in ONB §4, consistent with TS §6 guidance options, preserves §15 numbering — correct call.
The only finding (base.md line count: RF says 132, actual 131) is a self-reporting error in RF §1 metadata, not a content failure. No DoF condition was triggered.
One genuine observation from RF §5 (briefing.md gap) is promoted to tech debt below.
5. Tech Debt Collected¶
| # | Source | Severity | File | Description | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | RF §5 Obs-1 | Low | .tfw/templates/research/briefing.md |
Briefing template has no forward reference to the ## Dimensions section added to gather.md. A researcher reading only briefing.md before Gather won't know to prepare dimension decomposition in advance. Consider adding a note in the Research Plan section: "Identify candidate dimensions (decision factors) before Gather if obvious from briefing." |
→ Phase D backlog |
6. Traces Updated¶
- [x] README Task Board — status updated to 📚 KNW (A+B+C)
- [x] HL status — unchanged (master HL tracks overall TFW-41, not individual phases)
- [x] project_config.yaml — no change needed
- [x] Other project files — checked for stale info: none found
- [x] tfw-docs: N/A (Phase C adds template/workflow files; no KNOWLEDGE.md update needed — these are framework internals, not project-level decisions)
- [x] tfw-knowledge: N/A (RF §6 explicitly states no fact candidates; executor rationale is sound — pure execution phase with no human domain knowledge exchanged)
7. Fact Candidates¶
Reviewing conversation history for human-sourced insights not in KNOWLEDGE.md.
| # | Category | Candidate | Source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | philosophy | The simulation trap (HD-19): a researcher can fill a morphological box by compliance — listing options without real analysis — if the methodology is named as a mandate. Native terminology + cross-stage structural dependency is the proven countermeasure: the researcher can't fake Configuration Space columns without having done Dimensions first. | HL §10 H4/H5 + RES iter2 FC4/FC5 (referenced in HL, not yet in KNOWLEDGE.md) | High |
| 2 | process | Graceful degradation threshold for dimensional analysis: fewer than 3 independent decision factors → comparison matrix. This threshold is calibrated to avoid forcing artificial decomposition on simple problems. Now embedded in all three research templates and the workflow thread. | HL §4 DR12 | Medium |
REVIEW — TFW-41 / Phase C: Research Templates — Embedded Dimensional Analysis | 2026-04-20