title: "Map — "What was done?"" source: "tasks/TFW-50__minimal_agent_commit_attribution/review/map.md"
Map — "What was done?"¶
Mindset: Experienced newcomer. You arrived after someone else's work. Understand before you judge. No opinions yet — only comprehension. Test: "Can I explain what was done to someone who hasn't read the RF?" RF: RF TFW-50 TS: TS TFW-50 Mode: spec
Understanding¶
TFW-50 began from the published/restored v0.9.0 baseline bc6779e, planned a six-existing-path Markdown-only Commit Attribution change, completed the first implementation in 389168a, and then reopened after the user corrected the Executor/handoff-centered consumer model. One bounded RES iteration separated commit-subject format from commit cadence, restored the same six-path total implementation allowlist under configuration C7, and revised HL, TS, and ONB before corrective execution.
The final execution refined only .tfw/conventions.md and .tfw/glossary.md, preserved the canonical/installed handoff files and RELEASE.md byte-for-byte from 389168a, audited the wider workflow/adapter/skill corpus without editing it, and produced EV/RF traces. RF leaves the current-task Reviewer commit and independent final range audit pending for this review, while reporting all earlier history only as compatibility/searchability evidence with prompt and rejected TFW-49 machinery named as confounders.
TS ↔ RF Alignment¶
| TS requirement | RF claim | Aligned? |
|---|---|---|
AC-1: sole normative owner and exact [agent/task/scope/role] summary grammar |
RF §3 claims one conventions owner, one normative sentence/example, and no glossary duplicate | ✅ claimed |
AC-2: exact agent/task/scope/role/summary meanings and Git metadata/authentication boundaries |
RF §3 claims all term derivations and exclusions are present | ✅ claimed |
| AC-3: universal Coordinator/Researcher/Executor/Reviewer applicability without cadence | RF §3 claims universal wording, no role-specific grammar, and zero corrective cadence additions | ✅ claimed |
AC-4: handoff/release reconciliation preserved; four files byte-stable to 389168a |
RF §1/§3/§4 claims all four preserve files retain their 389168a blobs and unrelated Evidence drift |
✅ claimed |
| AC-5: exactly six existing implementation paths; wider corpus verification-only; no runtime/config/hook/schema/validator | RF §3/§4 claims exact allowlist, zero conflicts, and zero prohibited machinery | ✅ claimed |
| AC-6: current-task all-role subjects, independent Reviewer trace/range audit, tests, cleanup, and no publication | RF §3/§5 records Coordinator/Researcher/Executor, tests, cleanup, and remote state, and explicitly defers the current-task Reviewer commit plus final audit to /tfw-review |
⚠️ intentionally pending Reviewer |
Deviations from TS¶
- RF reports no implementation path outside the six-path total-task allowlist and no corrective implementation write outside conventions/glossary.
- The original approved plan and original ONB were superseded through the traced user correction, one bounded research iteration, revised HL/TS approval, and revised ONB approval; they remain part of the review baseline rather than unreported deviations.
- AC-6 is not claimed complete by the Executor. Its current-task Reviewer evidence and independent final range inspection are deliberately assigned to this review.
- RF §1 lists lifecycle trace writes (
README.md, ONB, EV, RF) separately from implementation scope, consistent with TS §4.
Checkpoint¶
Self-check: - [x] Read RF §1-§5 completely? - [x] Read TS DoD and matched each item to RF §3? - [x] Read HL §7 Principles — can I state the design philosophy? - [x] Read ONB — were blocking questions resolved?
Stage complete: YES