---

title: "Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"" source: "tasks/TFW-46__evidence_layer/phase-b/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?	✅	5/5 ACs verified against actual files — verify.md V1-V5. All sub-criteria in AC-1 (10 checkboxes) confirmed. AC dependency (AC-4 depends AC-2) respected: AC-2 done before AC-4
2	Philosophy aligned	✅	TS §3 Principles Check: P1 (real over synthetic) → AC-1 Step 11 text distinguishes real vs synthetic ✅; P2 (honest incompleteness) → DEFERRED/BLOCKED guidance in Step 11 ✅; P3 (coordinator designs, executor collects) → AC-3 plan.md + AC-1 handoff ✅; P4 (domain-agnostic) → no tool names in Step 11 ✅; P5 (proportional) → skip clause present ✅; P6 (tooling proactivity) → proactive tooling note present ✅; P7 (artifacts over claims) → Trust Protocol Challenge for N/A without TS evidence ✅
3	Tech debt documented	✅	RF §6 has 2 observations — both substantive (numbering confusion in plan.md, stale glossary ref routed to Phase C)
4	Style & standards	✅	Step 11 density matches Steps 9-10 (~5 lines). Trust Protocol entries follow existing 3-column pattern. plan.md sub-step follows existing numbering
5	Observations collected	✅	2 real issues: plan.md sub-step numbering pre-existing pattern, glossary.md stale ref already noted in Phase A. Quality bar: both are genuine, neither is filler
6	RF completeness (§7-9)	✅	§7 Fact Candidates: "No fact candidates." §8 Strategic Insights: "No strategic insights." §9 Diagrams: "No diagrams." All present with explicit N/A per F21
7	Evidence completeness	✅	All 5 TS AC items have Evidence field N/A (appropriate — workflow spec). RF §5 has 7/7 VERIFIED with line references that resolve to actual content (verified in verify.md E1-E7)

Mode-Specific Checklist

#	Check	Status	Evidence
7	Code quality	✅	Markdown conventions followed. Step instructions use existing patterns (bold title, dash-separated guidance, proportionality clause). No formatting deviations
8	Test coverage	N/A	No executable tests for .tfw/ framework files. Build config has echo placeholders
9	Security	✅	No secrets, no external URLs, no authentication. Workflow text only
10	Breaking changes	✅	Step renumbering (11→12, 12→13) is additive. Trust Protocol entries added, not modified. No backward incompatibility. Existing workflows referencing "Step 11" would need updating, but no other file references handoff steps by number

TS §3 Principles Check Verification

#	Principle	TS maps to	AC met?	Principle enforced?
P1	Real over synthetic	AC-1	✅	✅ — Step 11 distinguishes real environment from synthetic
P2	Honest incompleteness	AC-1	✅	✅ — DEFERRED/BLOCKED with reason
P3	Coordinator designs, executor collects	AC-3 + AC-1	✅	✅ — plan.md reminder + handoff step
P4	Domain-agnostic	AC-1	✅	✅ — environment types, not tool names
P5	Proportional to risk	AC-1	✅	✅ — skip clause when no Evidence fields
P6	Tooling proactivity	AC-1	✅	✅ — proactive tooling note
P7	Artifacts over claims	AC-2	✅	✅ — VERIFIED without artifact = Challenge

Contradictions with KNOWLEDGE.md

#	Knowledge item	RF claim	Contradiction?
1	D49 (TFW-41): Requirements-first TS	Step 11 follows AC-driven execution	No — extends D49 pattern
2	D46 (TFW-38): Trust Protocol	2 new entries follow same pattern	No — extends D46
3	D41 (TFW-38): 4-stage review	verify.md Evidence Verification referenced	No — referenced correctly

No contradictions found.

Checkpoint

Self-check: - [x] Every checklist item has evidence (not just ✅/❌)? - [x] Referenced verify.md findings in DoD assessment? - [x] Checked RF §7-9 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?

Stage complete: YES