---

title: "Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"" source: "tasks/TFW-41__execution_quality_gates/PhaseD/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: code Verify findings: verify.md

Universal Checklist

#	Check	Status	Evidence
1	DoD met?	✅	verify.md V1-V6: all AC-1 (15 terms) and AC-2 (4 adapters) items confirmed. One 1-byte encoding diff in tfw-plan.md is non-semantic.
2	Philosophy aligned	✅	HL §7 P2 (Requirements, not implementation): glossary entries define WHAT terms mean, verified domain-neutral. HL §7 P6 (Domain-agnostic): no domain-specific examples in any definition. Both mapped principles confirmed met per TS §3 Principles Check.
3	Tech debt documented	✅	RF §5 Observations present: 1 item (briefing.md forward reference). Quality-filtered: the observation is real and actionable.
4	Style & standards	✅	All 15 definitions follow single-paragraph format with → file §N reference pattern. Section placements (## Execution Gates after ## Roles, ## Research — Dimensional Analysis after ## Read-only AG) match TS §6 Technical Guidance suggestion. Glossary naming convention consistent with existing entries.
5	Observations collected	✅	RF §5 has 1 observation (briefing.md). Not generated for the sake of section existence — specific actionable issue with rationale. Quality bar met.
6	RF completeness (§6-8)	✅	§6 Fact Candidates: 2 items (process + convention). §7 Strategic Insights: explicitly marked "No strategic insights" with rationale (documentation-only phase). §8 Diagrams: explicitly marked "No diagrams" with rationale. All 3 sections present.

Mode-Specific Checklist (code)

#	Check	Status	Evidence
7	Code quality (conventions, naming)	✅	Pure markdown — naming follows TFW conventions. Glossary term ordering (logical grouping), section headings (H2), term headings (H3) all consistent with existing glossary structure.
8	Test coverage	N/A	No tests for markdown tasks. RF §4 Verification explicitly states "No build/lint commands defined — pure markdown modifications" with a manual checklist completed.
9	Security	N/A	No code, no secrets, no authentication. Not applicable.
10	Breaking changes	✅	Glossary: additive-only. Adapters: verbatim overwrite — no regression possible since source workflows already approved in Phases B/C. README: additive links only. Zero breaking changes.

HL §7 Principles Check

TS §3 maps two principles: - P2 (Requirements, not implementation) → AC-1: glossary entries describe WHAT terms mean. Verified in verify.md V1: definitions are conceptual, not implementation-instructional. - P6 (Domain-agnostic by default) → AC-1: domain-neutral language. Verified in verify.md V1: no code/CSS/API examples in any of the 15 definitions.

Both principles pass. No principle violation.

Contradictions with KNOWLEDGE.md

#	Knowledge item	RF claim	Contradiction?
1	TFW v3 canonical framework (KI)	Glossary extended with 15 new terms	No contradiction — this is an extension, not a change to existing terms

No contradictions found. KNOWLEDGE.md TFW framework KI reflects glossary at time of last sync; Phase D extends it. This is expected behavior.

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?

FC challenge assessment: - FC1 (process: HL is authoritative over TS when they diverge) — this is a genuine process insight from a real ONB resolution. High confidence. Worth capturing. - FC2 (convention: "Alternative" as missing link in term cluster completeness) — medium confidence, reviewer-discovered rather than human-sourced, borderline. Acceptable.

Stage complete: YES