title: "Map — "What was done?"" source: "tasks/TFW-41__execution_quality_gates/PhaseC/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__PhaseC__research_templates.md TS: TS__PhaseC__research_templates.md Mode: docs

Understanding¶

Phase C of TFW-41 embeds Zwicky's General Morphological Analysis into the three research stage templates (Gather, Extract, Challenge) using TFW-native terminology — no methodology names exposed to researchers. The executor added three new template sections (## Dimensions, ## Configuration Space, ## Consistency Check) before ## Findings in each respective template, wired them with a cross-stage dependency (Extract's column headers reference Gather's Dimension names), added a 5-sentence connecting paragraph in research/base.md Step 5, and documented the Zwicky origin in conventions.md §14.1 (maintainer-only scope). 5 file modifications, 0 new files.

TS ↔ RF Alignment¶

TS requirement	RF claim	Aligned?
AC-1: gather.md has `## Dimensions` before `## Findings`; ≥3 alternatives; no "recommended"; checkpoint item	RF §3 AC-1: all items checked ✅	✅
AC-2: extract.md has `## Configuration Space` before `## Findings`; references Gather dims; no eval; overflow protection	RF §3 AC-2: all items checked ✅	✅
AC-3: challenge.md has `## Consistency Check` before `## Findings`; pairwise instruction; unexpected survivors	RF §3 AC-3: all items checked ✅	✅
AC-4: research/base.md Step 5 has dimensional analysis paragraph ≤6 lines; graceful degradation; no GMA terms	RF §3 AC-4: all items checked ✅	✅
AC-5: conventions.md has origin note; 5 terms mapped; explicitly maintainer-facing	RF §3 AC-5: all items checked ✅	✅
DoF: No "Zwicky"/"GMA"/"morphological" in researcher-facing templates	RF §4: grep 0 results	✅
DoF: Configuration Space references Gather dimensions	RF §8 diagram + extract.md reviewed	✅
Technical Guidance: template sizes ~35-40 lines; base.md ~135 lines	RF §4: gather 40, extract 42, challenge 47, base 131/132 lines	✅ (challenge 47 justified)
Technical Guidance: thread ≤8 lines (DoF)	RF §3 AC-4: 3 sentences, 1 paragraph — well within budget	✅

Deviations from TS¶

challenge.md: 47 lines vs 35-40 target. RF §2 Decision 2 and §4 justify: 4 subsections (incompatible pairs table, surviving configs table, unexpected survivors field, graceful degradation note) require more space. TS §6 guidance was advisory ("~35-40 lines each"). Within DoF tolerance — no DoF triggered.
base.md: 131 lines (RF says 132 in §1, actual file = 131). Minor discrepancy in RF's own self-reporting. Actual file verified: 131 lines. Net delta from 129 is +2, not +3. Not a DoF violation — TS said "adds ~5-6 lines" and the actual thread is 5 lines. Line count discrepancy is in RF metadata only.
Conventions insertion as ### 14.1 (subsection) not a free-standing paragraph. ONB §4 pre-announced this recommendation; no objection was required. Outcome consistent with TS §6 guidance ("or as a subsection of §14 / new §14.1").

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?

Stage complete: YES