---

title: "Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"" source: "tasks/TFW-42__research_cycle_restructure/phase-a/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 6 ACs verified in verify.md V1-V7. Each AC sub-item confirmed against actual file content. No missing items
2	Philosophy aligned	✅	P1 (Locality): RES.md co-located with stages ✅ (V1). P2 (Sort order): numbered files ✅ (V3). P3 (Container): single research/ ✅ (V1). P4 (Consistent casing): phase-a ✅ (V5). P5 (Optional enrichment): agent/sources commented-out ✅ (V2). P7 (Tool-agnostic): no brand names ✅ (V4). All 6 applicable principles enforced
3	Tech debt documented	✅	RF §5 has 5 observations covering compilable_contract.md, handoff.md, plan.md, research/base.md, CHANGELOG.md — all relevant out-of-scope issues for Phase B/C
4	Style & standards	✅	Conventions.md follows existing formatting. Numbered files use consistent N_name.md pattern. iterations.yaml example is valid YAML with consistent indentation. Agent guidance table follows conventions.md table style
5	Observations collected	✅	5 observations, all typed (naming), all with file/line references, all actionable (4 need Phase B/C update, 1 historical no-action). Quality filter passed: each would cause real broken references if left unfixed
6	RF completeness (§6-8)	✅	§6 Fact Candidates present ("No fact candidates."). §7 Strategic Insights present ("No strategic insights."). §8 Diagrams present ("No diagrams."). All mandatory sections present with explicit N/A content

Mode-Specific Checklist

#	Check	Status	Evidence
7	Content quality	✅	Clarity: section structure is logical (Research → Multi-iteration → Schema → Agent guidance → Review → Multi-phase). Accuracy: all examples use correct paths. Completeness: covers all 7 HL §5 DoD items. Tone: consistent with rest of conventions.md
8	Source verification	✅	Key claims traced: HL §7.2 has 7 citations, all verified to resolve in verify.md. RES iter1 D1-D7 and iter2 D8-D12 referenced in HL — consistent with schema decisions (2 fields, not 5)

Contradictions with KNOWLEDGE.md

#	Knowledge item	RF claim	Contradiction?
1	D38: researchN/ subfolder accumulation	Phase A establishes research/iterN/ instead	No — D38 is being refactored by TFW-42. KNOWLEDGE.md §1 will be updated via tfw-docs after approval
2	convention.md F15: PhaseX/ subfolders	Phase A establishes phase-x/ instead	No — F15 records the OLD convention. Will be updated via tfw-knowledge after approval

Both are expected contradictions — the whole point of TFW-42 is to refactor these conventions. They will be resolved in the KNW step.

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? (RF has "No fact candidates" — acceptable for a pure documentation restructuring task)

Stage complete: YES