Skip to content

title: "Map — "What was done?"" source: "tasks/TFW-56__review_mode_removal/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 TFW-56 TS: TS TFW-56

Understanding

The executor deleted the code / docs / spec review-mode selection — the folder .tfw/workflows/review/ with its three mode files, the review.md mode step and its 🛑 WAIT gate, the tfw.review.default_mode config key in two files, and the Mode: / Review Mode fields in four templates — and promoted the checks that selection was gating into the universal Judge checklist, which goes from 7 rows to 10. review.md's steps renumber 0-7 contiguously, so Step 0 is Session Naming for the first time and TD-106 closes by deletion rather than annotation.

Three decisions shape the result beyond the literal TS. (1) S1 was written against U7 rather than merely differently: row 7 asks whether the evidence exists, row 8 whether it establishes the claim, with a contrast note and a Checkpoint item forcing separate answers. (2) U2 was split into two separately quotable clauses — (a) mapping integrity, (b) design soundness — so that TFW-53 Phase C, whose frozen DoD-20 replaces the mapping-integrity check in that same row, can replace clause (a) without silently taking the promoted S3 with it. (3) All three orphaned docs/spec verify actions were migrated into a new Claim & Source Checks section in verify.md rather than declined, which AC-4 also permitted.

Scope: 20 modified + 3 deleted framework/root files + 1 new evidence artifact. Net LOC −39. One anomaly is self-reported: the three deletions were swept into a concurrent session's commit (fbdf443, TFW-53/B), so the outcome is correct but its attribution is not.

TS ↔ RF Alignment

TS requirement RF claim Aligned?
AC-1 selection absent, steps contiguous, Step 0 = Session Naming RF §3 AC-1; EV §E1 ✅
AC-2 corrected ten-row Judge checklist, S1 ≠ U7, rates carried RF §3 AC-2; EV §E2, §E3 ✅
AC-3 all eight mode rows given a recorded home RF §3 AC-3 accounting table (8 rows) ✅
AC-4 three orphaned verify actions homed; four code actions still mandated RF §3 AC-4 accounting table (8 distinct actions) ✅
AC-5 REVIEW.md §3 matches judge.md row-for-row RF §3 AC-5; EV §E4 ✅
AC-6 default_mode gone, min_verify_ratio untouched RF §3 AC-6; EV §E5 ✅
AC-7 propagation table correct, step pointer resolves RF §3 AC-7; EV §E6 ✅
AC-8 conventions + glossary carry no mode vocabulary RF §3 AC-8; EV §E6 ⚠️ substance ✅, command misquoted in RF (V-D1)
AC-9 six adapter copies clean and behaviourally identical RF §3 AC-9; EV §E6 ✅
AC-10 VERSION bumped, CHANGELOG names the removed key RF §3 AC-10 ✅
AC-11 TD-106 closed with the reason RF §3 AC-11 ✅
AC-12 grep gate zero, history intact, 3 deletions, no framework file created RF §3 AC-12 (qualified); EV §E7, §E8, §E9 ✅ on substance, attribution flagged by the executor

Deviations from TS

  1. tfw.version in .tfw/project_config.yaml bumped 1.0.0 → 1.1.0 alongside .tfw/VERSION. Not itemised in TS §4, but inside a file TS §4 already lists as MODIFY. Justified in RF §2 decision 1 by git log -p showing the two fields moving in lockstep since 0.8.5. Recorded, not hidden. Accepted as refinement, not scope creep.
  2. REVIEW.md §3 gained a seventh row that was missing before this task. Baseline (6c3c506) shows 6 rows against judge.md's 7 — the Evidence completeness row added in 0.8.8 never reached the synthesis template. AC-5 requires row-for-row alignment, so repairing it is a consequence of the AC, not a bonus fix. RF §2 decision 5 records it so the 6 → 10 move does not read as three extra rows of scope.
  3. conventions.md §11 L466 ("Mode files loaded at Step 2, not at start") deliberately left unedited. RF §2 decision 6 and Observation 6. The sentence's D42 lineage is about review, but it remains true of research (research/base.md Step 2 loads focused/deep). Reported rather than changed — correct under "do not widen scope".
  4. Nothing in TS §2 Out of Scope was touched. The rigour axis, update.md's removed-key rule, the TFW-45 consolidator, goal defence in review, and history rewriting are all absent from the diff. Verified.

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? Delete rather than relabel; no coverage loss without a recorded home; a check that cannot fail is not a check; what to check is declared once, by the TS; explicit N/A over silent skip; history is evidence; behavioural adapter parity; structural enforcement over promise. - [x] Read ONB — were blocking questions resolved? One blocking question (Q1, version bump), owner answered 1.1.0. Four notes N1-N4 recorded.

Stage complete: YES