Skip to content

title: "Map — "What was done?"" source: "tasks/TFW-53__hl_contract_and_goal_defence/phase-c/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 C TS: TS Phase C ONB: ONB Phase C — 3 blocking questions, all answered (a) Reference set recovered: HL-TFW-53 at frozen baseline e8ee76e ([claude-code/TFW-53/freeze/coordinator] re-freeze after amendment A13), per conventions.md §3 rule 15

Understanding

The Judge checklist's row 2 clause (a) used to ask mapping integrity — does every TS §3 Principles Check row resolve to an AC that was actually met? That question cannot detect a principle violated by the mapping itself, and it had two live statements: the judge.md row and a paragraph in review.md Step 3. Both are gone. In their place row 2(a) is a Purpose Check — is this what we set out to do? — answered against the master HL at its committed frozen baseline plus the Project North Star, with the TS and any Phase HL named as invalid references. The enforcement mechanism sits in a block below the table, not in the row: one fused field (quote the clause served and name the concrete harm), three tests (excess-and-adjacency, deferral confession, materiality), an override clause ruling out "the TS scoped it this way" and "tests are green", and a three-outcome table.

Around it, six supporting files: review.md gains the frozen-baseline reference at line 28, a Reviewer Identity that names goals/values/north star with block authority, the replacement Step 3 instruction and a Step 4 routing block; REVIEW.md realigns §3 row 2 and surfaces the not fit for purpose finding inside its existing ### If REJECT block; glossary.md PV Index gains priority 0 and relabels priority 1; conventions.md §3 defines the Project North Star in seven rules and §14 gains two review-side anti-patterns; templates/HL.md gains a north-star header field below the contract block; compilable_contract.md stops resolving P{N} to the KNOWLEDGE.md §0 that D37 removed and reserves NS{N} and PP{N}. Two evidence artifacts are new, one of which replays the shipped check against nine historical reviews.

Three decisions a newcomer must hold. (1) The mechanism is a block, not a longer row — so clause (b) stays quotable and separately answerable, and the whole apparatus costs review.md's word budget nothing. (2) The third outcome is a finding, not a fourth status symbol — the Status column keeps ✅/❌/⚪ so it cannot collide with Phase E's forthcoming ❌ REJECTED status. (3) The README.md Task Board row was left uncommitted on the coordinator's explicit instruction, because a concurrent TFW-55 session holds the file.

TS ↔ RF Alignment

TS requirement RF claim Aligned?
AC-1 — Purpose Check replaces clause (a); clause (b) survives; 10 rows; rate + consequence reason; no project name RF §3: met with one disclosed divergence — clause (b)'s antecedent "those" → "HL §7", three words ✅ (divergence disclosed, not hidden)
AC-2 — five properties as failing conditions; dry-run + failing variant RF §3: all five present; purpose_check_replay.md §5 ✅
AC-3 — reference set stated; TS and Phase HL named invalid; fallback chain; rule-15 pointer, no restated command RF §3: substantively met; the gate's literal form has a pre-existing counterexample at templates/HL.md:10 ⚠️ substantive pass, gate counterexample disclosed
AC-4 — line 28, identity, routing, no new verdict token RF §3: lines 28, 87, 102; verdict set unchanged ✅
AC-5 — below 1,200 words; no removal to buy headroom; report rather than resolve RF §3: 1,065 → 1,176; removal column empty ✅
AC-6 — PV priority 0, priority 1 relabel, admission criteria, locus rules RF §3: priority 0 added, rows 2-7 byte-identical, conventions.md §3 carries all four ruled properties ✅
AC-7 — HL template north-star field below the contract block, list-valued, fallback, explicit N/A RF §3: one additive hunk, zero deletions ✅
AC-8 — REVIEW.md §3 row-for-row, finding in the synthesis, no new section RF §3: ten rows, row 2 realigned, finding inside ### If REJECT ✅
AC-9 — NS{n} / PP{n} / P{n}; one table only RF §3: lines 59-61, +3 / −1; PP{N} declared and unused, stated as such ✅
AC-10 — two §14 anti-patterns, additions only RF §3: 27 0 ✅
AC-11 — replay, ≥1 non-approve on the rejected corpus, 0 on the sound one, filled field per row RF §3: 5 of 6 / 0 of 3 ⚠️ condition met, one row's classification contested — see verify.md D1
AC-12 — third outcome, distinct, routed to the owner, reachable inside judge.md RF §3: outcome table row 3 + one-line precedent; "exercised for real: replay row 49/A" ⚠️ textual gate met; the "exercised" claim rests on the contested row
Frozen DoD 18-29 (12 items) Mapped: 18→AC-6 · 19→AC-7 · 20→AC-1/3/4 · 21→AC-2 · 22→AC-2 · 23→AC-12 · 24→AC-4 · 25→AC-4 · 26→AC-8 · 27→AC-9 · 28→AC-5 · 29→AC-11 ✅ every frozen item has an AC

Deviations from TS

  1. Clause (b) is not byte-identical — three words, disclosed in RF §2 decision 2, EV E1 and RF §3. The antecedent "those principles" referred to clause (a)'s TS §3 rows; deleting clause (a) would have left a dangling pronoun. Legitimate and correctly surfaced.
  2. not rubber stamp restored to the Reviewer Identity — two words beyond the literal AC-4 text, inside the deliverable AC-4 authorises, closing a loss D46 recorded and shipped only half of. Declared in RF §2 decision 5 with an explicit statement that it is not load-bearing.
  3. review.md:85 was added to TS §4 before it was touched — the coordinator amended the TS on ONB Q1 rather than letting the executor extend scope silently. Not a deviation in the shipped result; recorded because the discipline is what made it not one.
  4. AC-3's gate cannot be cleared by this phase. The gate says "confirm no second copy of the recovery command exists in .tfw/"; templates/HL.md:10 carries one and AC-7's gate forbids modifying that block. Reported, not worked around.
  5. TD-155 left open — its routing note named "the next phase that may edit conventions.md §3", which is this one, but the fix rewords Phase A's rules 13-15 and both HL §7.1 and TS §9 forbid it. Coordinator re-routed it to Phase D at ONB R4.

Nothing in RF is outside TS scope. Phase D's deliverables (glossary articles, adapter sync, version bump) and Phase E's are untouched; no repository north star was written into either README.

Checkpoint

Self-check: - [x] Read RF §1-§5 completely? — and §6-§9 - [x] Read TS DoD and matched each item to RF §3? — 12 ACs plus the frozen DoD 18-29 mapping above - [x] Read HL §7 Principles — can I state the design philosophy? — read at baseline e8ee76e: the contract earns the autonomy (P1), structural enforcement over guidelines (P3), purpose is a distinct question judged where verdicts are formed (P13), every gate needs a materiality bar (P14), alignment must be cited not asserted (P15), judge against the baseline never the spec (P16) - [x] Read ONB — were blocking questions resolved? — three questions, all answered (a), all four coordinator corrections (AC-1, AC-6, AC-7, AC-11) and AC-12 landed in the TS before execution

Stage complete: YES