Skip to content

title: "Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"" source: "tasks/TFW-53__hl_contract_and_goal_defence/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: spec Verify findings: verify.md

Universal Checklist

# Check Status Evidence
1 DoD met? ✅ All 12 TS ACs verified against the artifacts, not against the RF — verify.md V1–V3 for the three files, V4–V6 for the evidence set, Commands 2–10 for every gate. HL DoD-1…DoD-11 (Phase A's block) map onto AC-1…AC-12 and all land. Not one AC rests on a claim I could not re-execute
2 Philosophy aligned ✅ See §HL §7 Principles Check below — 9 mapped principles, 9 satisfied, 0 violations
3 Tech debt documented ✅ RF §6 carries 6 typed observations with file and line. Five survive the quality filter (obs. 2 is a live bug, obs. 3 a dead reference namespace, obs. 4 a repo-wide config defect, obs. 5 a forward-looking structural warning, obs. 6 a stale-TS notice). Obs. 1 is a genuine but cosmetic heading-level issue already ruled out of scope in ONB §6.6
4 Style & standards ✅ conventions.md additions are numbered rules and table rows per TS §6 and knowledge/process.md F4 — 21 rules, one 3-row table, one 6-line blockquote in §5 (the AC-10 deliverable, which has no numbered form). §14 appended, never renumbered — verified as +55 / −0, so DoF-7 could not have fired. Naming matches TS §6's fixed vocabulary exactly: Contract, FROZEN, Amendment, Amendment Log, EXTEND, SUPERSEDE, RESTRICT, Contract Baseline; the pre-A10 token APPLIED — restrictive appears 0 times (Command 4), so Phase D has nothing to reconcile
5 Observations collected ✅ Quality filter applied — see §5 of the REVIEW. Obs. 2 (gen_docs.py _replace_phase still globbing Phase{X}/ after D50 renamed folders) is a live resolver bug affecting every phase reference in this repository, found by an executor reading build code they were not asked to read
6 RF completeness (§7-9) ✅ §7 three fact candidates, each sourced and dated; §8 three strategic insights, each carrying an explicit Implication, which is the cognitive mode conventions.md §3 requires and which most RFs omit; §9 two diagrams — a file-to-AC map and a decision tree that renders the shipped classification rule as executable branching, with the rule number cited on every branch
7 Evidence completeness ✅ All 12 TS Evidence: fields are covered in the EV file. The 7 N/As quote the TS verbatim — checked word for word against TS AC-1/3/4/5/7/10/12, so they are the coordinator's design, not executor convenience (this is exactly the N/A-challenge the Trust Protocol demands, and it survives). The 5 VERIFIED each point at a file or an inline exhibit that I re-executed: both shells for AC-6, git show 721ca15 for AC-9, the live §12 corpus for AC-2

Mode-Specific Checklist (spec)

# Check Status Evidence
7 Analytical quality — logic, completeness, methodology ✅ The three ACs that could have been satisfied by assertion were instead run against live artifacts, and all three changed the deliverable: AC-6 against live history proved the documented recovery command returns nothing under Git Bash (rules 15's slash-free form exists because of it); AC-2 against 12 live rows exposed a disposition the verdict vocabulary could not name (🚫 WITHDRAWN); AC-8's exercise exposed a rule that reaches opposite classifications from the same evidence depending on when it is applied (rule 6's time-scoping). That is methodology producing findings, not methodology decorating conclusions. Circularity is handled correctly: classification_exercise.md puts the disqualifying limit before the 5/5 score and states plainly that agreement measures readability, not correctness — AC-8 asked for the limit to be stated; the executor also declined to let the number carry weight
8 Source attribution — claims traceable to evidence ✅ 29 of 29 knowledge citations resolve; 0 hallucinations (verify.md §Knowledge Citations). Every RF §7 fact candidate is traceable: FC1 to the measured shell transcript, FC2 to the coordinator's ONB rulings (I read the rulings — "it is a defect in what I wrote", "your mitigation is better than my AC" — both verbatim), FC3 to HL §12 row A10 whose Proposer cell does read Executor (Phase A ONB Q2). RF §8 S2 quotes the ONB §3.1 Assessment verbatim and correctly. Every measurement in RF §4 ships with the command that produced it, and all of them reproduce

HL §7 Principles Check

Read from TS §3. For each principle mapped to an AC, the linked AC was verified met in RF §3.

# Principle Mapped AC AC met? Verdict
P2 Classify, never edit AC-3 ✅ ✅ — templates/RES.md offers two classes, states the researcher never applies, and the Coordinator applies these line is gone (Command 2 → 0 matches). The instruction that caused TFW-49's drift no longer exists on the template side
P3 Structural enforcement over guidelines AC-1, AC-2, AC-6 ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ — the contract is a header field, a marker on every heading and a 10-column table, plus a git-recoverable baseline. Nothing here is advisory prose, which is DoF-1's exact failure mode
P5 Evidence, cost, alternative AC-2 ✅ ✅ — all three are mandatory columns; the template restates "A proposal without evidence, cost and a considered alternative is not a proposal"
P6 Narrow D19, don't revoke it AC-3 ✅ ✅ — RES still produces HL feedback; only the frozen channel turns from write to propose. DoF-8 not hit
P7 Token density AC-8 ✅ ✅ with a flag — additions are numbered rules and table rows, no prose blocks in §3. But conventions.md grew +28.2% in one phase and B, C, E each append more. Not a violation (ONB Risk 5 ruling: report the delta, do not compress below usability) and correctly measured and surfaced in RF §4 — it is the number the next three phases inherit. Raised as TECH_DEBT, not as a finding against this phase
P9 Naming creates behavior AC-1, AC-2 ✅ ✅ ✅ — and strengthened during execution: the ONB Q2 escalation that became amendment A10 exists precisely because APPLIED — restrictive was a disposition sitting in a column of relation nouns. The executor refused to ship a token that would have made this principle's own enforcement claim false on day one
P10 Authority cannot self-extend AC-7 ✅ ✅ — rules 17–19 plus the matching §14 anti-pattern. TFW-49 cited its own delegation three times to accept overruns; rule 19 names that move and forbids it
P11 A remark is not a verdict AC-5 ✅ ✅ — rule 8 covers research thread, review and chat; rule 9 closes the reverse polarity (owner-initiated change is still an amendment). Both restated in the §12 instruction block, so the rule sits where the author is working
P12 A frozen baseline must be diffable AC-6 ✅ ✅ — and this is the phase's strongest work. Rule 14 extends the reserved word to the first freeze because the executor checked and found TFW-53's own baseline commit non-conforming; rule 15 is slash-free because the documented form was measured returning zero rows
P1, P4, P8, P13–P17 — N/A per TS §3 — Correctly scoped out: P1 is task-level, P4 lives in plan.md (Phase B), P8 is Phase D, P13–P16 are review-side (Phase C), P17 is Phase E

No principle was mapped to a failed AC. No principle violation found.

Noted for Phase C, which replaces this check: the mapping-integrity structure the HL itself criticises (§3 "a principle mapped to a passing AC scores ✅ regardless of the AC's content") is the structure I just used. It happens to hold here because I verified AC content independently in verify.md rather than trusting the checkmarks — but that is reviewer discretion, not the check working. The HL's diagnosis of its own review template is correct and Phase A does not fix it, nor was it asked to.

Contradictions with KNOWLEDGE.md

# Knowledge item RF claim Contradiction?
1 D19 — HL update = mandatory RESEARCH output RES now classifies into two tables; frozen sections get proposals, not edits No — narrowed, not revoked. Research still produces HL feedback; DoF-8 is the guard and it is not hit
2 D20 — implicit approval = transition to next status The Contract field makes approval explicit and separate from task status No — this is the correction D20's failure mode called for. conventions.md rule 1 states the two are not interchangeable
3 D24 — Pattern A: inline defaults, not indirection The frozen/free split is restated inline in templates/HL.md, conventions.md §3 and HL-TFW-53 §3 No — Pattern A honoured. All three lists verified identical (verify.md V1, V3); TS §6 names HL §3 as the single decision point if they ever diverge
4 D31 — filesystem-as-state-machine No new state file; contract state lives in the HL header plus git history No — RES iter1 D5 settled this: a snapshot file creates two contracts that can disagree. H3 recorded the partial confirmation and the commit-scope-word remedy
5 D53 — evidence folder mandatory; 0 of 38 tasks created it while optional evidence/ present with three artifacts No — compliant, and D53 is the argument that made Proposer a column rather than prose
6 D55 — [agent/task/scope/role] commit attribution Rule 14 occupies the scope slot with a reserved freeze word No — extends D55 within its own grammar; the phase's own commit e37a8dc conforms
7 D50 — phase folders renamed to phase-a/ RF obs. 2 reports gen_docs.py still globbing Phase{X}/ No contradiction — a confirmation. The RF documents that the resolver never caught up with D50. This is TECH_DEBT, not a conflict

No applicable contradictions.

Checkpoint

Self-check: - [x] Every checklist item has evidence (not just ✅/❌)? — each cites a verify.md V-item, a numbered command, or a quoted artifact passage - [x] Referenced verify.md findings in DoD assessment? — check 1 cites V1–V6 and Commands 2–10; D1–D5 carried into REVIEW §5 rather than re-investigated - [x] Checked RF §7-9 for presence AND quality (not just existence)? — check 6. §8's insights each carry an Implication; §9's second diagram is the shipped rule rendered as a decision tree with rule numbers on the branches, which is a genuine test of whether the rule is executable and not merely readable - [x] KNOWLEDGE.md cross-referenced — contradictions documented or "None"? — 7 items checked, none contradicts - [x] Fact Candidates from RF reviewed — any that need challenge? — none challenged. FC1 re-measured by me in both shells and confirmed. FC2 and FC3 both trace to artifacts I opened. All three pass the "would the next agent decide differently?" filter — FC1 in particular is a standing constraint on every shell command this framework ever ships

Stage complete: YES