title: "Map — revision 2 — "What was done?"" source: "tasks/TFW-60__conflict_resistant_shared_workspace/phase-aa/review/rev2/map.md"
Map — revision 2 — "What was done?"¶
Mindset: Experienced newcomer. Understand before you judge. Scope of this revision: the delta since REVIEW
8e83b6dreturned 🔄 REVISE. The first pass stands and is not rewritten:../map.md·../verify.md·../judge.mdRF: RF Phase AA at revision 2 Commits under review:b44bf7d,312dca9Owner's stated emphasis for this pass: not file or line counts — «важнее качество цели ценности» — and a full audit of the template moves: who referenced what, where each thing is taken from, and whether any dirt or strangeness survived.
Understanding¶
The executor closed the three returned items and then did something the review did not ask for: it ran the mechanic the review's own fact candidate named — grep the retired sentence, not the concept — and found four more sites of the same class. Two of them were in code this phase had just edited.
.tfw/templates/status.md now states the two-act UNDECLARED rule and cites
conventions.md §5 instead of restating its table; the miscount reads "The six keys." The
four loose claims are narrowed in place, and in 312dca9 the executor declined to reuse the
reviewer's parser measurement, re-derived its own, and recorded both with their methods —
"a number from someone else's run is not one they can vouch for."
The class is now a test rather than an intention: test_no_normative_file_states_a_retired_rule
checks a named registry of retired wordings against every payload file that instructs, states
its own reach, and files the part it cannot reach as an observation with a candidate fix.
TS ↔ RF Alignment — delta only¶
| Returned item | RF revision 2 claim | Aligned? |
|---|---|---|
1 — templates/status.md states the retired absolute rule |
§10 item 1: replaced with the two-act rule, citing §5; CHANGELOG Canon entry now names all three copies and records that the third was missed | ✅ |
| 2 — "four keys" listed six | §10 item 2: "The six keys" | ✅ |
| 3 — four claims wider than their evidence | §10 item 3 (a)–(d): pycache caveat at the row; follow counts re-measured at the declared pin (9 and 6); ASCII check's reach stated; both parser measurements recorded | ✅ |
| (not returned) — the class behind item 1 | §10 items 4–7: stale --validate docstring; parents[2] in both test files; the dead [TD-11](../../../../../reference/tech-debt.md) citation; and the CHANGELOG paraphrase deliberately left with its exemption classified |
✅ exceeds the item |
| (not returned) — D3, the two counts | §1: both numbers now stated, with what each counts, and the TS's invalidated prediction pointed at the next phase's budget table | ✅ recorded as the review asked, not "fixed" |
Deviations from TS — delta¶
None new. Revision 2 touches four payload files (templates/status.md, CHANGELOG.md, the
two payload test files) plus one non-payload test file and this phase's own trace artifacts.
Every one was already in the phase's scope.
Checkpoint¶
Self-check: - [x] Read RF §1-§5 and the new §10 completely? - [x] Matched each returned item to the RF's account of it? - [x] Read HL §7 Principles — unchanged since the first pass; principle 10 still the phase's spine - [x] Read ONB — no new questions were raised; the revise round needed none
Stage complete: YES