Skip to content

title: "Map — "What was done?"" source: "tasks/TFW-53__hl_contract_and_goal_defence/phase-a/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__phase-a__contract_in_artifacts.md TS: TS__phase-a__contract_in_artifacts.md Mode: spec

Understanding

Phase A turns the HL contract from an idea in [HL-TFW-53](../../HL-TFW-53__hl_contract_and_goal_defence.md) into artifact state, across exactly three framework files and no new ones. .tfw/templates/HL.md gains a five-field contract header block, a three-state marker on every section heading (🔒 FROZEN / 🟢 FREE / 🟢 APPEND-ONLY) with a subsection-inheritance rule, a §12 Amendment Log carrying a 10-column grammar with Type and Verdict vocabularies, and a four-property gate clause appended to §3.1. .tfw/templates/RES.md splits HL Update Recommendations into Refinements (free sections) and Amendment Proposals (frozen sections) and loses line 32's Coordinator applies these. .tfw/conventions.md gains the governing definition: a #### HL Contract subsection with 21 numbered rules in four groups, a §5 REJECT-branch-(a) redefinition, and seven §14 anti-patterns.

Two decisions go beyond the TS letter, both recorded in RF §2: adding 🚫 WITHDRAWN to the §12 verdict vocabulary (found by diffing the shipped grammar against HL-TFW-53's own 12 live rows, where A11 is a withdrawal the four-value draft could not name), and time-scoping the rule-6 tripwire to "§5 and §6 as they stand at the moment of classification" (surfaced by the AC-8 exercise, where row A1 classifies one way against the 2026-08-08 contract and the other way against today's).

Nothing in this phase executes. plan.md, review.md and research/base.md still carry the old instructions — Phase B is what makes them obey. TS §2 declares that intermediate state as expected.

TS ↔ RF Alignment

TS requirement RF claim Aligned?
AC-1 — HL declares its own contract state (header field, three states, §12 pointer, inline markers) RF §3 AC-1 ✅, 5/5 bullets, section lists cross-checked against HL §3 ✅
AC-2 — §12 with enforceable column grammar (10 cols, Type enum, RESTRICT rule, PROPOSED, explicit-N/A, instruction text) RF §3 AC-2 ✅, 7/7 bullets; grammar diffed against 12 live rows → EV §E2 ✅
AC-3 — RES classifies instead of instructing (two tables, § column, evidence/cost/alternatives, line 32 deleted) RF §3 AC-3 ✅, 5/5; gate grep "Coordinator applies these" → 0 ✅
AC-4 — conventions.md defines the HL Contract; split matches template and HL §3 RF §3 AC-4 ✅, 3/3 ✅
AC-5 — an amendment verdict is a distinct recorded act RF §3 AC-5 ✅ — rules 8, 9 ✅
AC-6 — the baseline is diffable (commit-first, freeze scope word, slash-free recovery, no self-naming) RF §3 AC-6 ✅ — rules 13–16; gate run under both shells → baseline_recovery.txt ✅
AC-7 — delegated authority is a ceiling RF §3 AC-7 ✅ — rules 17–19 ✅
AC-8 — granularity rule + carve-out + word-count delta + 5 discriminating rows RF §3 AC-8 ✅ — rules 5–7; delta reported §4; 5/5 with circularity limit stated first ✅
AC-9 — Phase HL may no longer author a contract RF §3 AC-9 ✅ — rules 20–21 + §14 entry; gate git show 721ca15:… → EV §E9 ✅
AC-10 — ❌ REJECT branch (a) no longer thaws the contract RF §3 AC-10 ✅; verdict vocabulary and §5 status table untouched ✅
AC-11 — Working Backwards and visualization mandatory in §3.1 RF §3 AC-11 ✅, 8/8; no budget/slot/cut-order language; applied to HL's own §3.1 → EV §E11 4/4 ✅
AC-12 — anti-pattern set complete RF §3 AC-12 ✅ — 7 present; reproducible count 28 → 35 ✅
Evidence Artifacts (EV file, baseline_recovery.txt, classification_exercise.md) All three present in phase-a/evidence/ ✅
Budget: 0 new files, 3 modifications, ~180 added lines 165 insertions / 16 deletions, 3 files, 0 new framework files ✅

Deviations from TS

Two, both declared in RF §2 and neither expanding the phase's file set:

  1. 🚫 WITHDRAWN added to the §12 Verdict vocabulary. AC-2's Evidence clause asked only to record any field the template could not hold. The executor recorded it and also closed it. Justified in RF §2 Decision 1 and EV §E2: HL-TFW-53 §12 row A11 is a live withdrawal, and shipping a template that cannot carry the artifact AC-2 names as its own test corpus was judged worse than the addition. Under the shipped granularity rule this is a refinement — DoD-2 enumerates Type values and the column set, not Verdict values, so no frozen claim moves.
  2. Rule 6's tripwire time-scoped — "under §5 and §6 as they stand at the moment of classification", six words added during the AC-8 exercise. Specification of how Phase A deliverable 3 meets its outcome; recorded in RF §2 Decision 2 and in classification_exercise.md §Finding as a change the exercise caused.

TS items not addressed: none. All 12 ACs and all three Evidence Artifacts are delivered.

Undeclared change: the same commit (e37a8dc) also de-links three rows of the executor's own ONB §2 table and updates the README Task Board row. Both are executor-writable artifacts, but neither appears in RF §1 or RF §4 — carried to verify.md.

Checkpoint

Self-check: - [x] Read RF §1-§5 completely? - [x] Read TS DoD and matched each item to RF §3? — 12 ACs, table above - [x] Read HL §7 Principles — can I state the design philosophy? — 17 principles; the load-bearing set for Phase A is P3 (structural enforcement over guidelines), P5 (evidence, cost, alternative), P9 (naming creates behavior), P10 (authority cannot self-extend), P11 (a remark is not a verdict), P12 (a frozen baseline must be diffable). The philosophy: the contract must exist as artifact state — a header field, a marked heading, a column — because a rule with no enforcement site is decoration, and the framework has already lost this bet twice (D46's "not rubber stamp" half, templates/RES.md:32). - [x] Read ONB — were blocking questions resolved? — both, on 2026-08-10. Q1 (Proposer column) answered (b), ruled a refinement, retro-fitted to HL §12's live rows by the coordinator. Q2 (APPLIED — restrictive) answered (a): D8 semantics ship immediately, token name escalated as amendment A10 and approved. All 7 recommendations accepted, 5 risks ruled, 9 inconsistencies dispositioned.

Stage complete: YES