Skip to content

title: "Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"" source: "tasks/TFW-55__canonization_program/phase-b/review/phase-b2/judge.md"

Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?"

Mindset: Judge. The evidence from Verify, not the RF verdict, controls this ruling. Test: "Would I stake my reputation on this passing production review?" Verify findings: verify.md

Universal Checklist

# Check Status Evidence
1 DoD met? ❌ Verify D1–D3. AC-1/2 and the practical-guide restoration hold, but AC-4 current lifecycle exactness, AC-5 Russian semantic fidelity, AC-7 sufficient exact-final critic closure, and AC-9 trace correctness do not. The same glyph defect also affects KK parity under AC-6.
2 Purpose Check + design soundness ✅ (a) Purpose: master baseline §1 says the root README.md is the practical guide for repository identity, audience, Edition, installation/initialization, first command, files/workflows, and next destinations; A6 orders restoration from b924926. The concrete harm is a newcomer losing the ability to select, install, start, and navigate the product, which the old B1 compact doorway caused. Target f8b0731 avoids that harm: all functions are restored, with RU/KK as full guides rather than essay summaries. (b) Design: the root-guide/essay/mechanics/trace separation is sound, minimal philosophy is linked rather than retold, English remains semantic authority, localized boards remain absent, and no excluded BoK or framework redesign entered the result.
3 Tech debt documented ✅ RF §6 records stale D66 and the absent Iteration 2 target with correct scope disposition. No new backlog-class debt emerged: D1–D3 are bounded current-phase correctness findings and must be fixed before acceptance rather than deferred.
4 Style & standards ❌ Links, Markdown structure, UTF-8, naming, commands, and materiality discipline otherwise hold. The public guide violates the canonical task-status vocabulary with ⛔ BLOCKED, and the central RU localization violates the required human-authority meaning. These are standards/factual defects, not stylistic preferences.
5 Observations collected ✅ RF observations are real, pre-existing, explicitly scoped, and do not manufacture new work. The accepted KK LOW preference remains non-blocking. The three review findings are current acceptance defects, not observations to defer.
6 RF completeness (§7–9) ✅ §7 explicitly reports no new human-only Fact Candidates; §8 records two source-linked execution insights; §9 explicitly explains why no diagram is useful. All three sections are present and proportionate. Their completeness does not cure false AC/Evidence claims elsewhere.
7 Evidence completeness — does it exist? ❌ EV exists and has nine rows, environment metadata, reproducible checks, and lineage. Every TS AC specifies Evidence: N/A. A MAY-deviate choice is permitted only with RF justification; none is recorded, so replacing all nine with VERIFIED leaves the Evidence-status coverage invalid even though the document-verification material exists.
8 Evidence sufficiency — does it establish the claim? ❌ Green signals for historic SHA/counts, scope, board integrity, links, commands, UTF, and critic lineage reproduce. They do not establish E4 exact lifecycle facts, E5 Russian semantic fidelity, or E7 sufficient critic closure; those rows are contradicted by the target text and authoritative sources.
9 Backward compatibility ✅ The non-TFW-55 board tail and TFW-60 row are exact, all old B1 traces are byte-identical, .tfw/README.md keeps reviewed blob 71a4d725…, every public local link/anchor resolves, all 11 commands remain, and no historic practical H2 function is removed. Phase-specific stage files use review/phase-b2/ to avoid overwriting the old B1 review chain.
10 Safety ✅ The diff contains documentation and TFW trace files only; no secrets, credentials, destructive commands, external writes, or irreversible operations were introduced. Install prompts explicitly use a temporary clone and preserve existing project state.

Purpose Check — Row 2 Clause (a)

Aligned. The controlling master clause says: “The root README.md is the practical project guide: it explains what the repository is, who it serves, which Edition to choose, how to install or initialize it, which command starts work, what files and workflows exist, and where to go next.” The concrete harm is loss of newcomer self-service and repository orientation. The target restores each named function from b924926, while .tfw/README.md remains the separate philosophical depth. It adds no adjacent product, no result assigned to another phase, and no material excess; descriptive growth is tied block-by-block to current facts or newcomer functions.

The Project North Star is internally consistent with that clause: it owns purpose/principles/non-goals, while the root guide applies a minimal definition and routes outward. There is no purpose failure or contract defect.

Contradictions with KNOWLEDGE.md

# Knowledge item RF/result claim Contradiction?
1 D2/D35 — root landing/project guide is separate from .tfw/README.md paper Restored practical root guide plus essay link No; target restores the intended separation.
2 D52 — Evidence is real-world verification with fixed VERIFIED / DEFERRED / BLOCKED / N/A vocabulary RF/EV report nine deterministic Git/document checks as VERIFIED despite nine TS N/A fields, without a declared/justified MAY-deviate choice Yes — blocking trace contradiction (Verify D3).
3 D58/D59 — availability, testing, attribution, recoverability, scheduling, and independence claims must remain bounded Target describes Assisted manual fallback, bounded agents, and no availability/automation guarantee No.
4 D66 — compact multilingual doorway is current architecture A6 and target restore a full practical guide Yes, but intentionally stale and explicitly deferred to post-APPROVE /tfw-docs; D66 is superseded history, not acceptance authority and not editable during this review.
5 knowledge/philosophy.md F35/F36/F42 — frozen contract, separate purpose axis, materiality bar Review approves purpose but returns meaning/fact/trace defects No; the findings have material authority, operational-fact, and Evidence-integrity impact. No taste-only preference grounds the verdict.

Bounded Findings and Recheck Requirements

  1. Russian authority boundary — README.ru.md:27. Replace the obligation-to-stop meaning with natural Russian that preserves human responsibility/decision authority to stop when warranted. Harmonize it with the already acceptable How-It-Works row, then have the same Russian critic re-read the complete new exact-final object, supply the required back-translation/semantic table, and explicitly verify this boundary.
  2. Canonical BLOCKED status — README.md:209, README.ru.md:201, README.kk.md:201. Use authoritative ❌ BLOCKED in all three. Re-run lifecycle/source parity and, because both localized blobs change, obtain same-critic complete exact-final rechecks for RU and KK.
  3. Evidence classification — EV E1–E9/final verdict and RF §5. Preserve the useful deterministic verification record but restore the approved TS classification: nine Evidence items are N/A, not real-environment VERIFIED. The existing RF cannot rely on MAY-deviate because it records no deviation/justification and the artifacts do not show target-environment reception or operating-effectiveness observation. RF and EV tallies/wording must agree with TS and conventions.
  4. Mandatory new-target rechecks. Reproduce historic SHA/1,485 count; complete ledger and actual section/file counts; links/anchors/11-command/path sets; lifecycle source parity; strict UTF-8/mojibake; language switch; one EN/zero localized boards; non-TFW-55 tail and TFW-60 identity; reviewed essay blob; old B1 object identity; critic draft→new-final lineage; placeholders; exact scope/budget; EV↔TS↔RF status consistency; and git diff --check.

Non-blocking limits remain separate: the accepted KK пен preference is taste-only; word growth has no ceiling/band and is not a defect; missing Iteration 2/TFW-54 links are pre-existing and outside B.2 Executor scope; stale D66 remains deferred until an eventual APPROVE; no BoK work is authorized.

Checkpoint

Self-check: - [x] Every checklist item has evidence? - [x] Every N/A carries a reason? (No checklist row is N/A.) - [x] Row 2(a) answered against the master contract baseline and Project North Star, with the clause served and concrete harm? - [x] Rows 7 and 8 answered separately? - [x] Verify findings referenced in DoD assessment? - [x] RF §§7–9 checked for presence and quality? - [x] KNOWLEDGE.md cross-referenced and contradictions documented? - [x] RF Fact Candidates reviewed? (Explicit none; no unsupported candidate added.)

Stage complete: YES