title: "Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"" source: "tasks/TFW-52__tfw_light_v1/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? | ✅ | verify.md Acceptance Criteria Verification: AC-1–AC-8 independently PASS; product, runtime and protected-baseline checks are complete |
| 2 | Philosophy aligned | ✅ | All ten HL §7 principles pass the explicit matrix below; thread history proves trace-first execution, not post-hoc reporting |
| 3 | Tech debt documented | ✅ | RF §6 contains one concrete config-budget ambiguity; it survives the quality filter and is triaged Medium for TECH_DEBT.md |
| 4 | Style & standards | ✅ | Canonical names, four-file boundary, Markdown-only Light, English repository guide, Russian frozen starter, word ceilings and no-placeholder rule verified in verify.md V1–V8 |
| 5 | Observations collected | ✅ | RF observation identifies an actual cross-phase authority ambiguity rather than filler; no implementation fix was attempted during review |
| 6 | RF completeness (§7-9) | ✅ | §7 Fact Candidates, §8 Strategic Insights and §9 Diagrams all exist. FC#1 is useful evidence but fails the Human-Only Test and is not promoted to REVIEW; §8/§9 remain accurate and relevant |
| 7 | Evidence completeness | ✅ | Every TS Evidence field is represented in EV: 5 VERIFIED, 3 justified N/A, 0 missing/deferred/blocked; all referenced artifacts and live roots resolve (verify.md E1–E8) |
Mode-Specific Checklist¶
| # | Check | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docs-7 | Content quality | ✅ | Edition guide is clear, accurate, complete and work-oriented; Light remains concise and non-code; both live deliverables are usable rather than recommendations (verify.md V1–V6, V9–V10) |
| Docs-8 | Source verification | ✅ | Key historical/product claims trace to D56, HL TFW-51 and RES iter1–3; all 15 HL links and 17 unique citation groups resolve; AC-6/7 claims trace to actual inputs, outputs, hashes and completed threads |
HL §7 Principles¶
| Principle | Status | Ruling evidence |
|---|---|---|
| P1 — Цель выше задачи | ✅ | Both live prompts state user, audience, outcome and verification criteria; traces preserve them and results answer those goals rather than merely copying prompt wording (verify.md V9–V10) |
| P2 — Working Backwards до действий | ✅ | Both traces place goal/readiness criteria before the work log. Thread history shows trace/task initialization before creation of each final result; the user-supplied criteria were explicit before any content production |
| P3 — След работы — часть результата | ✅ | App thread histories show traces created and updated during the runs; evidence copies hash-match the final live traces |
| P4 — Знание должно накапливаться | ✅ | Both live memory/PROJECT.md files contain durable facts/decisions with sources; traces remain primary task evidence |
| P5 — Структура поддерживает дисциплину | ✅ | Four starter files, one task row and one task-local trace per run exist as filesystem state; no promise-only substitutes |
| P6 — Автоматика тиха до границы риска | ✅ | Light contains no automation and preserves the ≤3-question rule; complete prompts required 0 questions in both runs, with no unnecessary user ceremony |
| P7 — Первичный след не уничтожается | ✅ | TFW-51 is unchanged across executor range and current worktree; source hashes match before/after manifests |
| P8 — Один писатель на изменяемую сущность | ✅ (N/A scope) | Phase A is the one-participant Light edition; each run has one agent-owned task/trace and no shared concurrent writer. TS explicitly maps this principle N/A until Phase B |
| P9 — Редакции обучают постепенно | ✅ | editions/README.md names Light's observable manual limits and the specific future omissions Assisted intends to address, without creating the future package |
| P10 — Просто снаружи, честно внутри | ✅ | Starter text remains short and non-code; repository docs explicitly say Assisted is unavailable and make no hooks, Team or automatic-memory claim |
No mapped principle failed its linked AC; therefore there is no principle violation.
Definition of Failure Audit¶
TS §7¶
| DoF | Triggered? | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Light has more/fewer than four input documents | No | Exact current tree in verify.md V2–V5 |
| Baseline diff contains unapproved changes | No | Independent recursive diff has only the installation sentence and two edition/version rows |
Assisted, .codex, hooks or scaffolding appear |
No | Current editions/ tree and forbidden-path scan |
03-team/ or future placeholder folder appears |
No | Current editions/ tree contains only 01-light/ and guide |
| TFW-51 source is changed/moved/deleted | No | Protected path is tracked, present and diff/status-clean; hashes unchanged |
| AC-6/7 are simulated, in-repo or VERIFIED without artifacts | No | Two completed external-root threads, actual files, provenance and matching hashes |
Installation still nests 01-light |
No | Literal copy-contents instruction and both live root layouts |
| Phase A promises unavailable automation/roles | No | Product docs label Assisted future; Light contains no such promise |
.tfw/ is changed by Phase A |
No | Executor commit range contains no .tfw/ path; unrelated dirty config is pre-existing shared state |
Master HL §6¶
| DoF | Triggered? | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
More than two product phases / Team edition / 03-team/ |
No | Master HL remains two-phase; current editions tree has no Team |
| Light grows beyond four input docs or receives Assisted automation | No | Four-file tree; no runtime automation |
| Assisted relies on uninstalled/untrusted hooks | N/A | Assisted is out of Phase A and not delivered |
| Hook event is claimed as semantic-task guarantee | No | No hook guarantee is made in Phase A files |
| Shared TASKS/CURRENT_USER/trace/counter/index becomes parallel write point | N/A | Phase A delivers single-participant Light; Assisted parallel model is not implemented |
| Binding/session is presented as authentication/authority | No | No identity mechanism or such claim exists |
| Secret/sensitive material reaches shared candidate before risk check | N/A | No shared candidate/Assisted memory is implemented |
| Consolidation schedule/promotion/pruning returns into scope | No | Edition guide says Assisted future; no consolidation implementation or claim |
| Role modes/docs duplicate TFW-54 | No | No Team package or role-mode product exists |
| Light→Assisted becomes migration platform or overwrites sources | No | Only future bounded preservation statement; no migration mechanism in Phase A |
| Solution becomes code-centric / incomprehensible to non-code users | No | Two materially different non-code live runs succeed with usable outputs |
| Process artifacts overshadow finished starter products | No | Usable edition guide and four-file starter exist; evidence directly exercises them |
No TS or master-HL Definition of Failure condition is triggered.
Contradictions with KNOWLEDGE.md¶
| # | Knowledge item | RF/product claim | Contradiction? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | D56 — TFW-51 is a frozen four-file field baseline | Light is copied with only explicitly approved compatibility edits; source remains unchanged | No |
| 2 | philosophy F13 / constraint F7 — domain-agnostic method and evidence | Product text is non-code and evidence uses documents plus education | No |
| 3 | stakeholder F1 / F3 — business value first; synthetic tests insufficient | Edition guide leads with work value and Phase A includes two live runs | No |
| 4 | process F4/F5/F6 — steps/gates, file-first traces, scope control | Runs write trace before result; Phase A stays within approved scope | No |
| 5 | philosophy F4 — structural enforcement | Four-file topology and task-local trace are observable filesystem state | No |
Fact Candidate Review¶
RF FC#1 is factually supported by thread history, but it is machine-verifiable rather than human-only. It remains useful execution evidence and supports RF §8; it is not promoted as a REVIEW Fact Candidate. No new human-only fact arose in this reviewer session.
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