---

title: "Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"" source: "tasks/TFW-42__research_cycle_restructure/phase-c/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 3 ACs verified: glossary entries updated (V1, 4 greps clean), 4 adapter copies byte-identical (V2/V3/V7/V8), version 0.8.6 in VERSION/CHANGELOG/config (V4/V5/V6)
2	Philosophy aligned	✅	P1 (Locality): glossary now references research/iterN/ co-located paths. P3 (Container): no researchN/ in glossary. P5 (Optional enrichment): agent/sources marked optional. P7 (Tool-agnostic): no tool brand names in glossary
3	Tech debt documented	✅	RF §5 carries 2 observations from Phase B (TD-111: compilable_contract.md, TD-112: handoff.md — both PascalCase remnants). Appropriate — these are out-of-scope for Phase C
4	Style & standards	✅	RF follows template structure. Artifact naming follows conventions (kebab-case phase folder, double-underscore separators). CHANGELOG uses Keep a Changelog format
5	Observations collected	✅	2 observations carried forward from Phase B with TD references. Quality filter: both are real naming inconsistencies in specific files with line numbers
6	RF completeness (§6-8)	✅	§6 Fact Candidates: "No fact candidates." — valid (docs sync task, no domain insights). §7 Strategic Insights: "No strategic insights." — valid (mechanical sync task). §8 Diagrams: "No diagrams." — valid (no architecture changes)

Mode-Specific Checklist (docs)

#	Check	Status	Evidence
7	Content quality	✅	Glossary entries are clear, accurate, and complete. Each entry includes cross-reference to conventions.md §4. agent and sources field descriptions match conventions.md and HL exactly
8	Source verification	✅	Glossary text matches conventions.md §4 (source of truth). CHANGELOG entries match actual changes across all 3 phases. Version bump is consistent across 3 locations

Contradictions with KNOWLEDGE.md

#	Knowledge item	RF claim	Contradiction?
1	D38 (multi-iteration research)	Glossary reflects refactored D38	No — D38 still references researchN/ in its text, but that's KNOWLEDGE.md content (tfw-docs territory, not Phase C scope). Glossary is now correct

Note: KNOWLEDGE.md D38 (L69) still says researchN/ subfolder accumulation — this is expected to be updated during tfw-docs after Phase C approval. Not a contradiction with Phase C deliverables.

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? (No — "No fact candidates" is valid for mechanical sync task)

Stage complete: YES