Skip to content

title: "Verify — "Are the claims true?"" source: "tasks/TFW-41__execution_quality_gates/PhaseC/review/verify.md"

Verify — "Are the claims true?"

Mindset: Auditor. The RF is a declaration, not a fact. Open files. Run commands. Compare claims against reality. Test: "If I removed the RF, would the evidence alone prove the work was done?" Mode: docs Min verify ratio: 0.42 RF files claimed: 5 Files to verify: ⌈5 × 0.42⌉ = 3 minimum → verified all 5 (100%)

Verification Log

V1: .tfw/templates/research/gather.md

  • RF claim: Added ## Dimensions section before ## Findings; added conditional checkpoint item. 25 → 40 lines. Instruction: "do NOT mark any alternative as 'recommended'".
  • Actual: File is 40 lines. ## Dimensions section at line 5 — BEFORE ## Findings at line 19. ✅ Table with D1/D2/D3 rows and 4 alternative columns. Line 9: "Do NOT mark any alternative as 'recommended'". Line 36 checkpoint item: - [ ] Dimensions identified? _(skip if <3 independent factors — use comparison matrix in Findings instead)_. Graceful degradation instruction at line 17.
  • Match: ✅

V2: .tfw/templates/research/extract.md

  • RF claim: Added ## Configuration Space section before ## Findings; references Gather dimension names via column headers; no evaluation instruction; overflow protection. 25 → 42 lines.
  • Actual: File is 42 lines. ## Configuration Space at line 5 — BEFORE ## Findings at line 21. Column headers: {[D1](../../../../knowledge-index.md#architecture-decisions) from Gather}, {[D2](../../../../knowledge-index.md#architecture-decisions) from Gather}, {[D3](../../../../knowledge-index.md#architecture-decisions) from Gather} — explicitly reference Gather by name, creating structural cross-stage dependency. Line 9: "Do NOT evaluate yet — list all combinations that are not obviously contradictory." Lines 17-19: overflow protection with inline example (if C1 = (A, A, A), only keep rows where at least one column is not A). Graceful degradation note line 19.
  • Match: ✅

V3: .tfw/templates/research/challenge.md

  • RF claim: Added ## Consistency Check section before ## Findings; pairwise instruction; incompatible pairs table; surviving configurations table; unexpected survivors field; graceful degradation note. 25 → 47 lines.
  • Actual: File is 47 lines. ## Consistency Check at line 5 — BEFORE ## Findings at line 26. Line 7: "Take each pair of dimensions from Gather and ask: 'Can Alternative X coexist with Alternative Y?'" Incompatible pairs table at lines 10-13. Surviving configurations table at lines 15-19. Unexpected survivors field at lines 21-22. Graceful degradation note at line 24. Checkpoint item line 43: "Pairwise incompatibility checked? Surviving configurations listed?"
  • Match: ✅

V4: .tfw/workflows/research/base.md

  • RF claim: Added 3-sentence dimensional analysis thread at start of Step 5. 129 → 132 lines (RF says 132, actual is 131). No GMA/Zwicky terminology.
  • Actual: File is 131 lines (minor self-reporting error in RF §1 — "129 → 132", actual delta is +2). Thread at line 62 (one long paragraph before Cover all three...): explains Gather→Dimensions, Extract→Configuration Space, Challenge→Consistency Check chain; cross-stage dependency ("skipping Dimensions in Gather makes Configuration Space in Extract impossible to fill"); graceful degradation ("If fewer than 3 independent dimensions exist, use a comparison matrix in Gather instead"). No "Zwicky", "GMA", or "morphological" present — grep confirmed 0 results.
  • Match: ✅ (minor: RF reports 132 lines, actual 131 — not a DoF violation)

V5: .tfw/conventions.md

  • RF claim: Added ### 14.1 Terminology Origin (maintainer reference) subsection after §14 anti-patterns. Maps 5 TFW-native terms to Zwicky GMA equivalents. Explicitly maintainer-only.
  • Actual: ### 14.1 Terminology Origin (maintainer reference) at line 391. Table at lines 395-401 mapping all 5 terms (Dimension, Alternative, Configuration Space, Consistency Check, Surviving Configuration) to Zwicky GMA equivalents. Line 403: "> Scope: This note is for framework maintainers only. The terms \"Zwicky\", \"GMA\", \"General Morphological Analysis\", \"morphological box\", and \"cross-consistency assessment\" MUST NOT appear in any researcher-facing template or workflow instruction." §15 Role Lock Protocol follows at line 405 — numbering intact.
  • Match: ✅

Commands Executed

# Command Result
1 grep "Zwicky" .tfw/templates/research/ (recursive) 0 results ✅
2 grep "Zwicky" .tfw/workflows/research/base.md 0 results ✅
3 grep "recommended" .tfw/templates/research/gather.md 0 matches (prohibition text uses "recommended" only in negation — not present as positive instruction) ✅
4 grep "Configuration Space" .tfw/templates/research/extract.md Section heading confirmed ✅

Note: No build/lint commands exist in project_config.yaml for Markdown files. This is a docs-only phase — no test runner applicable.

Discrepancies Found

  1. base.md line count discrepancy (minor): RF §1 states "129 → 132 lines" but actual file has 131 lines. Net delta = +2, not +3. RF claim is internally consistent (says "3 sentences, 1 paragraph block" in §3 AC-4) — the paragraph occupies 1 line in the file (long wrapped sentence), not 3. Discrepancy is in RF §1 metadata only, not in actual content. Not a DoF violation. DoF triggers only on content failures, not metadata inaccuracies.

No other discrepancies found. Escalation to 100% verification not required (triggered only on content discrepancies), but was done anyway as a quality measure.

Knowledge Citations Verified

HL §7.2 has 4 citations. ONB §7 verified all 4.

# Artifact Citation Link resolves? Item exists?
1 HL §7.2 #1 conventions.md §14 — Anti-patterns list ✅ ✅ (verified: lines 366-389, anti-patterns)
2 HL §7.2 #2 conventions.md §3 — TS definition ✅ ✅ (verified: lines 56-57)
3 HL §7.2 #3 glossary.md — Scope Budget ✅ ✅ (file exists at .tfw/glossary.md)
4 HL §7.2 #4 README.md Values — "The thinking is the product" ✅ ✅ (README.md exists at project root)

Total citations: 4, verified: 4, hallucinations: 0.

Checkpoint

Self-check: - [x] Opened ≥ ⌈5 × 0.42⌉ = 3 files and recorded findings? (All 5 verified — 100%) - [x] Ran at least 1 build/test command (or documented why not)? - [x] Each RF §3 (AC) checkmark verified against actual file? - [x] KNOWLEDGE.md checked — contradictions with changes documented? - [x] Knowledge Citations from HL §7.2 and ONB §7 verified (links resolve, items exist)? - Total citations: 4, verified: 4, hallucinations: 0

Stage complete: YES