Skip to content

title: "Map — "What was done?"" source: "tasks/TFW-53__hl_contract_and_goal_defence/phase-d/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 D TS: TS Phase D

Understanding

The executor completed the Phase D portability and release pass for the HL-contract and goal-defence mechanism. The work defines the ten required glossary terms, normalizes the two named terminology families, synchronizes seven canonical workflows into fourteen Claude/Antigravity adapter copies, checks the thin Codex routers and entry points, closes the five scoped debt items, and releases the combined Phase A–D result as TFW 1.2.0 with structured evidence.

The implementation deliberately avoids reopening the mechanisms built in Phases A–C. Its two substantive execution choices were to leave uncommitted baseline outside the synonym sweep because it names an absence, and to make only one truth-restoring edit to the Codex plan router while copying full workflow adapters from the canonical .tfw/ sources after a direction check.

TS ↔ RF Alignment

TS requirement RF claim Aligned?
AC-1 — define nine contract/purpose terms plus Result Visualization, with placement, length, distinction and governing-rule pointers Ten articles were added; the nine contract/purpose terms share one new grouping, Result Visualization sits between its siblings, all articles are 41–50 words and carry rule pointers ✅
AC-2 — canonicalize Contract Baseline and Project North Star without growing the two budgeted workflows Retired frozen baseline and bare-capital North Star forms fall to zero; uncommitted baseline is excluded per the answered ONB; plan.md and review.md remain 1,195 and 1,176 words ✅
AC-3 — re-sync all fourteen full adapter copies after direction checking; keep Codex skills as thin routers Fourteen drift lines become silent output; all full copies match their sources; the false approved permission is removed from both Codex plan-router copies while review routers remain unchanged ✅
AC-4 — correct the entry-point descriptions and add only the explicitly authorized two missing Claude rows CLAUDE.md has two corrected purpose cells and the two authorized rows; AGENTS.md is unchanged after a falsity check; neither gains a section ✅
AC-5 — release 1.2.0 in lockstep, fold Unreleased accurately, and preserve the TFW-54 purpose pointer VERSION and tfw.version both read 1.2.0; one changelog entry covers Phases A–D, corrects the drift count/state, and names TFW-54 ✅
AC-6 — close TD-157, TD-163, TD-164, TD-165 and TD-167; preserve executable documentation tests The five rows are closed with reasons, TD-164 is handled first by removing the duplicated command, and the RF reports 68 passing tests; the broader resolver gap is filed as TD-170 ✅
AC-7 — make no unasked content rewrite and report each framework hunk The RF accounts for every hunk in the six framework files, reports unchanged workflow word counts, and states that no sentence was rewritten, no template field was added and no unrequested section was added outside the AC-1 glossary grouping ✅

Deviations from TS

  • .tfw/workflows/plan.md was listed as MODIFY but was left untouched because it contains neither retired terminology form.
  • The two tfw-review Codex skill files were listed as conditional modifications but were left untouched because their statements remained true.
  • README.md received the required Phase D board-row edit but was intentionally left unstaged because the file also contains concurrent TFW-55 work; TS §9 explicitly authorizes this handoff.
  • Four supporting text captures were added beside the mandatory EV file. They are evidence attachments, not additional product deliverables.
  • No Phase HL exists for Phase D; the master HL Phase D block supplies the phase-specific context and carries no second contract.

No TS acceptance criterion is omitted from RF §3. All three ONB blocking questions were answered before execution, and the six recommendations were either approved or explicitly overruled with the resulting scope recorded in the amended TS.

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

Map — second pass (corrective, 2026-08-18)

The coordinator converted the first verdict's four revision items into AC-8–AC-12. The executor then changed only CLAUDE.md, TECH_DEBT.md, the RF and the EV; no glossary, adapter, workflow, template or release file was reopened. The corrective pass therefore repairs accounting, evidence narration and two case-wrong entry-point links while carrying the already-verified AC-1–AC-7 implementation forward.

First-pass finding → corrective result

First-pass finding Corrective result Mapped?
D1 — file-budget subject undefined and the all-file count was 33 > 30 The owner ruled that executor product files, not TFW task/process artifacts, spend the phase budget. The later clarification explicitly excludes README.md; the governing count is 27/30 product files, with six trace files separate. TD-173 records that the general rule still needs encoding ✅ AC-8
D2 — the reported hunk/substitution counts did not reproduce The exact six-file command now yields 16 -U0 hunk headers and the semantic ledger carries 11 substituted lines; RF §9 and EV E17 give the per-file reconciliation ✅ AC-9
D3 — RF §7–§8 failed their Human-Only tests §7 retains only the owner's all-fourteen ruling; §8 states No strategic insights. Agent-derived material is moved to decisions/observations or dropped, and the template contradiction is filed as TD-174 ✅ AC-10
Revision item 4 — evidence verdict must be recomputed EV contains 26 rows: E17/E19 were replaced and seven corrective rows added. RF §5 and the EV verdict report 26/26; the first-pass 17/19 state remains explained ✅ AC-12
Review debt TD-172 — case-wrong config links Both CLAUDE.md links now use .tfw/project_config.yaml; the old-name gate is silent and TD-172 is closed ✅ AC-11

Deviations and retained trace

  • RF §1/AC-8 conservatively includes README.md and reports 28; the owner's later ruling classifies the board update as a TFW process artifact, so the governing budget count is 27. Either count is under 30.
  • RF's new-files table still labels the EV as “19 rows,” and its AC-12 summary still says 19/19 and “five” new rows; RF §5 and the EV itself correctly give 26/26 and seven. The owner explicitly ruled these summary labels non-material to execution quality.
  • No corrective change alters the purpose, design or behavioral surface established in the first pass.

Checkpoint — second pass

  • [x] Updated TS AC-8–AC-12 read completely?
  • [x] Corrective RF and EV read completely?
  • [x] Every first-pass finding mapped to a corrective result?
  • [x] Owner's current budget-subject and materiality rulings recorded?

Stage complete: YES