---

title: "Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"" source: "tasks/TFW-41__execution_quality_gates/PhaseC/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?	✅	All 5 ACs verified against actual files (verify.md V1-V5). All TS §7 DoF conditions avoided. See verify.md — zero content discrepancies.
2	Philosophy aligned	✅	P1 (Gates over guidelines): cross-stage dependency in extract.md column headers is a structural gate, not a checkbox. P6 (Domain-agnostic): no methodology names in researcher-facing text — grep confirms 0 Zwicky hits. P5 (Executor as engineer): workflow thread gives connecting logic, not copy-paste instructions. All HL §7 principles with mapped ACs enforced.
3	Tech debt documented	✅	RF §5 Observations table present: 1 item — briefing.md has no reference to Dimensions section. Real issue, specific file, concrete mitigation path. Quality-filtered: not filler.
4	Style & standards	✅	Heading hierarchy consistent (## Dimensions, ## Configuration Space, ## Consistency Check match section naming convention). Terminology: TFW-native throughout researcher-facing files. Conventions §14.1 heading uses consistent numbering style (### 14.1, matching existing ### Hard Stop Rule pattern in §15). §15 Role Lock section number preserved.
5	Observations collected	✅	1 genuine observation (briefing.md gap). Executor correctly flagged as Phase D candidate. Not over-reported.
6	RF completeness (§6-8)	✅	§6 Fact Candidates: present — "No fact candidates" with clear rationale (pure executor phase, no human domain knowledge). §7 Strategic Insights: present — "No strategic insights" with rationale. §8 Diagrams: present — cross-stage dependency flow diagram included, adds real explanatory value. All three sections exist.

Mode-Specific Checklist Items (docs)

#	Check	Status	Evidence
7	Content quality	✅	Template instructions are clear and actionable: Gather uses "Do NOT mark any alternative as 'recommended'" (explicit prohibition), Extract uses "Do NOT evaluate yet" (explicit prohibition), Challenge uses guiding question format ("Can X coexist with Y?"). Inline example in extract.md overflow note anchors the pruning rule concretely. Graceful degradation notes appear consistently across all 3 templates.
8	Source verification	✅	Key claim: "grep Zwicky → 0 results" — verified by reviewer independently (verify.md V1, V4). Key claim: "§15 numbering preserved" — verified in conventions.md (lines 405+). Key claim: "cross-stage dependency mechanism" — verified: Extract column headers use {[D1](../../../../knowledge-index.md#architecture-decisions) from Gather} placeholder format, enforcing dependency structurally (verify.md V2).

Contradictions with KNOWLEDGE.md

KNOWLEDGE.md exists at project root. The TFW v3 knowledge item (trace_first_workflow_v3_standard) covers artifacts (HL, TS, ONB, RF, REVIEW), Role Lock, and Scope Budgets. It does not cover research templates or dimensional analysis.

#	Knowledge item	RF claim	Contradiction?
1	TFW v3 KI: research/base.md uses OODA loop per stage	Phase C adds introductory paragraph BEFORE the OODA heading, not inside it	No contradiction — additive, preserves OODA structure
2	TFW v3 KI: Scope Budget ≤7 files per phase (KI says v3 default)	5 modifications, 0 new files	No contradiction — within budget. Note: project_config.yaml overrides to 14 files; either way compliant.

No contradictions found.

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 (not just existence)? - [x] KNOWLEDGE.md cross-referenced — contradictions documented or "None"? - [x] Fact Candidates from RF reviewed — any that need challenge? (None to challenge — "No fact candidates" rationale is sound: pure executor phase)

Stage complete: YES