title: "Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?" (revision 2)" source: "tasks/TFW-60__conflict_resistant_shared_workspace/phase-ab/review/rev2/judge.md"

Judge — "Is the quality sufficient?" (revision 2)¶

Mindset: Judge. Every ✅ needs proof. Every ❌ needs a specific finding. Verify findings: verify.md · revision 1: ../judge.md

Universal Checklist¶

#	Check	Status	Evidence
1	DoD met?	✅	Rev1 left AC-2 bullet 1 and AC-6 carrying findings. Both are closed by `4846f27`: the constant and its two assertions are gone (verify.md V1–V2, command 8), and the false sentence is gone from all three copies with the file at 840 words (V3–V5). Every other AC gate was verified at rev1 against code `4846f27` does not touch. AC-8 release remains DEFERRED to `/tfw-release` per §15
2	(a) Purpose Check · (b) Design soundness	✅	(a) unchanged reference set and unchanged answer — see field below. (b) The correction removed text and asserted nothing new; no design surface moved
3	Tech debt documented	✅	RF §6 unchanged (O1–O4, all promoted at rev1). RF §3 states plainly that TD-200/TD-201 were not taken — the honest form of not doing something
4	Style & standards	✅	Commit `[codex/TFW-60/phase-ab/executor] correct review findings` follows §4 grammar; the journal event is clock-read, carries both identity fields, names the gap it covers instead of back-dating (TD-205 closed by it); RF and EV carry a revision line. Cosmetic: RF §1 `update.md` row still says "852 words" while §1's correction table and §4 say 840 — one stale cell in an otherwise refreshed RF; not worth a debt row
5	Observations collected	✅	No new observations from a three-path deletion round, and none were owed
6	RF completeness (§7-9)	✅	Unchanged from rev1; the round produced no human-only fact and no strategic insight, and the diagram still matches the code
7	Evidence completeness — does the evidence exist?	✅	EV rows E2, E3, E6 revised; `verification_gates.txt` gains a dated correction section; the one DEFERRED still names its blocker
8	Evidence sufficiency — does the evidence establish the claim?	✅	Independently re-established here: rendered manifest contains no `Unaccounted` and three `HELD` rows (command 8); grep over the corrected files returns nothing (command 6); 283 tests re-run (1–2); 840 words (4); one hash per triplet (5). The rev1 limit on E3 is resolved by wording, not by a new run — correct, since the creation path is agent-executed prose and nothing else could run; the directory-side refusal it points to is a real test
9	Backward compatibility	✅	Deleting a manifest sentence changes no consumer contract: nothing parsed it, and the accounting table it duplicated remains. `update.md` loses a claim, not an instruction. TD-201 (artifact naming for the current grammar) stands as filed
10	Safety	✅	Deletions only; refusal ordering untouched (`require_guarantees` still precedes any write); no consumer worktree written

Purpose Check — row 2 clause (a)¶

Reference set: master HL at 810b1b8 — §4 Phase AB declared outcome, §5 DoD 20, §6 DoF 8 — plus .tfw/README.md NS1. Unchanged since rev1.

Field: The result serves DoD 20 — "computes every invariant it asserts and names which guarantees were checked" — and NS1's "inspect its material grounds"; the harm removed is the one A5 records, a shipped task silently written to TODO under a manifest asserting zero unaccounted, and the correction round removed the last sentence in the tool that could still say "zero" without showing the count.

Three tests: excess — no, two deletions inside the phase's own files; deferral — /tfw-release still owns the release acts and nothing was shipped in its place; materiality — the constant was the exact sentence quoted in the third report, so its removal is on the value, not on wording. Outcome: Aligned — ✅.

Contradictions with KNOWLEDGE.md¶

#	Knowledge item	RF claim	Contradiction?
1	D68 · §3 Legacy row 2 — dirty-clock grammar current; event name includes actor	current grammar `PREFIX_stamp_ABBR`; event suffix is a token	Yes — known, TD-202, for `/tfw-docs` now that the phase is approved

Checkpoint¶

[x] Every checklist item has evidence?
[x] No bare ✅, no unexplained N/A? — none used
[x] Row 2(a) against baseline and north star with clause and harm?
[x] Rows 7 and 8 answered separately?
[x] verify.md findings referenced?
[x] RF §7-9 checked for presence and quality?
[x] KNOWLEDGE.md contradictions documented? — one, known, routed
[x] Fact Candidates reviewed? — none claimed; accepted with the same reason as rev1

Stage complete: YES