title: "Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"" source: "tasks/TFW-50__minimal_agent_commit_attribution/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: spec Verify findings: verify.md

Universal Checklist¶

#	Check	Status	Evidence
1	DoD met?	✅	Verify V2-V7 establishes AC-1 through AC-6; the independent Reviewer trace and final 16-subject audit close the Executor-deferred part of AC-6
2	Philosophy aligned	✅	One Markdown owner, precise names, no runtime, no duplicated grammar, no cadence, and explicit publication authority align with all seven HL §7 principles; see Principles Check below
3	Tech debt documented	✅	RF §6 records two pre-existing role-label inconsistencies; both were verified and triaged below rather than silently ignored
4	Style & standards	✅	Six-path total scope, two-file correction, English artifact structure/content, one normative sentence/example, no placeholders, and passing `git diff --check` satisfy conventions
5	Observations collected	✅	RF observations are accurate naming drift, but neither creates a subject/push conflict because conventions §15 owns the role value; quality filter does not promote them as TFW-50 debt
6	RF completeness (§7-9)	✅	RF §7 contains two human-sourced correction facts; §8 contains three bounded execution insights; §9 diagrams the single-owner/four-role/no-cadence relationship
7	Evidence completeness	✅	TS AC-1 through AC-5 prescribe N/A repository-source evidence and EV records N/A; AC-6 EV correctly deferred Reviewer-owned proof at Executor handoff, then Verify V6/V7 resolves it without altering Executor evidence

Mode-Specific Checklist¶

#	Check	Status	Evidence
8	Analytical quality	✅	The full trace preserves the original plan and implementation, exposes the handoff-centered gap, inventories all role/consumer classes, retains Extract's rejected cadence proposal as evidence, and uses Challenge to derive C7 before revising HL/TS/ONB; Verify V1/V5/V6 confirms implementation follows that conclusion
9	Source attribution	✅	Verify V8 confirms all 22 HL/ONB citation rows and the official Git primary-source claims about title/subject, author/committer metadata, and authentication; hallucinations: 0

Principles Check¶

HL §7 principle	TS mapping	Verified AC result	Principle violation?
P1 Outcome over mechanism	AC-1, AC-6	One searchable subject contract; 16/16 readable current-task subjects; no runtime	No
P2 Naming creates behavior	AC-1, AC-2	Exact grammar and five precisely derived terms	No
P3 Single source of truth	AC-1, AC-4	One normative owner; glossary/reference and conflict-specific instantiations only	No
P4 Declared context, not identity proof	AC-2, AC-5	Subject trace is separated from Git author/committer metadata and authentication; no unmarked-human inference	No
P5 Human publication authority	AC-4, AC-6	Handoff and release require explicit push approval; remote remains baseline	No
P6 Proportional completeness	AC-3, AC-5	Four roles covered through universal ownership without 20-copy/cadence expansion	No
P7 Transparent boundaries	AC-4, AC-5, AC-6	Six paths, four protected blobs, exact exclusions, confounders, tests, cleanup, and no-publication state are explicit	No

Definition of Failure Check¶

TS §7 failure condition	Triggered?	Evidence
Implementation outside six-path allowlist	No	Verify V4: unexpected 0, missing 0
New framework/runtime/config/state file or phase	No	Verify V4 and full range path inventory
Full rule duplicated outside conventions	No	Verify V2/V5: one grammar occurrence in non-task corpus
New commit cadence/checkpoint policy	No	Verify V5 and added-line inspection
Handoff Evidence drift changed	No	Verify V3: full preserve blobs equal `389168a`
Authentication/human-detection claim	No	Verify V2/V8
Extra fields, fixed limits, matrices, or trailers	No	Verify V2/V4
Handoff/release automatic push	No	Verify V3/V5
Remote action, history rewrite, or hook restoration	No	Verify V1/V4/V7
Failed tests/checks or generated debris	No	Verify V7: 55 unit + 13 integration passed; generated roots removed

Observations Triage¶

RF observation	Verified?	Quality-filter decision	Rationale
`docs.md` role header says `Coordinator / Reviewer`	✅	Do not promote	It is pre-existing, outside TFW-50, and produces no current subject error: conventions §15 is the normative owner and actual docs subjects use `coordinator`
`release.md` role header says `Coordinator / Maintainer`	✅	Do not promote	It is pre-existing, outside TFW-50, and produces no current subject error: conventions §15 and active `RELEASE.md` both use `coordinator`

No project-level TECH_DEBT entry is warranted by the review quality bar. If role-label normalization is later desired for consistency, it requires a separately approved cleanup rather than expansion of TFW-50.

Contradictions with KNOWLEDGE.md¶

#	Knowledge item	RF claim	Contradiction?
1	D15 / convention F5: canonical workflow ownership and thin adapters	One normative conventions owner; only conflicting handoff copies changed	No
2	D23 / philosophy F22: compress instructions and avoid template/prompt bloat	One sentence, one example, concise glossary; rejected 20-copy expansion	No
3	D24: enforcement-critical values inline	All five subject components and publication boundary are inline in the sole rule	No
4	D28 / process F3-F4: precise naming plus actionable steps	Exact field names and point-of-use conflict fixes	No
5	process F6/F22: resist scope explosion and generic overhead	Challenge removed unsupported cadence and broad adapter churn	No

Fact Candidate Challenge¶

RF §7's two candidates are genuine human-supplied corrections and pass the Human-Only Test. They remain candidates for later /tfw-knowledge; this review neither promotes them nor duplicates them.

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