Judge — TFW-60 / Phase A review revision 4

Mindset: Judge. Decide whether the supported product behavior is ready to proceed. File/line volume and adversarial rule-breaking are outside this owner-directed verdict.

Universal checklist

#	Check	Status	Evidence
1	DoD met?	✅	The quality-bearing acceptance criteria, including AC-14's corrective obligations, pass in source, tests, production validation, and pinned evidence
2	(a) Purpose Check + (b) Design soundness	✅	(a) Task-local advancement does not require a shared write. (b) Local authority, derived views, immutable events, profile-backed accountability, and pinned evidence form a coherent design
3	Tech debt documented	✅	RF observations are explicitly routed; applicable existing debt remains recorded. No new accepted-quality defect needs a debt row
4	Style & standards	✅	Whole-ID terminology, actor-bearing event naming, role separation, canonical instructions, and adapter copies agree
5	Observations collected	✅	RF §6 names out-of-scope observations and assigns them without silently changing their files
6	RF completeness (§7–9)	✅	Fact Candidates, Strategic Insights, and diagrams are present and substantive
7	Evidence completeness — does it exist?	✅	Every quality claim used by this verdict has a source, test, pinned artifact, or explicit non-claim
8	Evidence sufficiency — does it establish the claim?	✅	Independent reruns and source inspection support the quality-bearing claims; volume-only claims are excluded, not treated as proof
9	Backward compatibility	✅	Legacy tasks and immutable journal history remain readable while current workflows publish the new identifier and event grammar
10	Safety	✅	No destructive action, secret exposure, task move, unrelated staging, or unapproved implementation edit occurred

Purpose check

The master purpose passes. Live state is authoritative inside the task, phase state is local to the phase, journal writes are separate immutable records, and the portfolio index is a derived view that may become stale without blocking a transition. The concrete original harm — making concurrent tasks contend on one shared board or index update — is not reintroduced.

Design soundness

The supported design is release-sound. A normal current event follows the actor-bearing canonical grammar, production validation resolves declared participants and human accountability, migration preserves old actorless records rather than rewriting history, and evidence is tied to an immutable implementation commit. The workflow and adapter surfaces teach the same model the code enforces.

The review does not reinterpret deliberate use of the retired grammar or deliberate profile corruption as supported behavior. That exclusion is explicit owner direction, not an unstated weakening of evidence.

Knowledge and observation routing

RF §6 contains documentation, knowledge, and existing-debt follow-ups. RF §7 contains Fact Candidates that require the normal knowledge gate after approval. They are not silently promoted during review. The historical ONB citation-application discrepancy remains disclosed and routed; the references themselves resolve and the third pass did not change that surface.

Verdict

✅ APPROVE

Within the explicit quality-only, non-adversarial boundary, no release-blocking defect remains. The task should enter KNW; documentation and knowledge consolidation are the next workflow, not another executor correction.

Stage complete: YES