WP-0003-T06 review: accept PhaseManifestSpecification.md, no fix needed

Verified three reviewer notes against the actual spec and schema files:
Rule 1's bare "Required" wording vs longstop_at's "Required for Stage 0"
tier label reads unambiguously given §4 and the schema; degeneration_policy
is correctly plain Required with Q7 (which pilot policy) appearing only in
the schema field description, not as a tier qualifier; target_basis's
optional-object-with-Recommended-subfields structure matches the schema
exactly. All three confirmed as non-issues, not drift.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

workplans/TREV-WP-0003-normative-core-extraction.md

@@ -198,10 +198,22 @@ accept):
       §3, which already carried the concept's narrower list correctly.
       Corrected §1.11 to quote the closed list verbatim; confirmed no other
       document (TSD §5, PRD FR-4) carries the broadened version.
-- [ ] `specs/PhaseManifestSpecification.md` — field tiers match
+- [x] `specs/PhaseManifestSpecification.md` — field tiers match
       `schemas/phase_manifest.schema.json` (already implemented, WP-0002-T02);
       `phase.longstop_at` is explicitly labeled a Stage 0 working default
-      (Q8), not silently presented as permanent Rule 1 scope.
+      (Q8), not silently presented as permanent Rule 1 scope. **Reviewed and
+      accepted 2026-07-29, no fix needed** — three minor notes recorded:
+      (1) §3 Rule 1 says "any Required field" in the bare sense, while
+      `longstop_at` is tiered "Required for Stage 0"; §4's provisional-
+      pending-promotion language and the schema together make the Stage 0
+      binding unambiguous, so this reads correctly despite the differently-
+      worded tier label. (2) `degeneration_policy` is correctly plain
+      Required (the concept always required *a* policy); Q7 is about
+      *which* pilot policy is designated, and appears only in the schema
+      field's description (`schemas/phase_manifest.schema.json`), not as a
+      tier qualifier — consistent, not a drift. (3) `target_basis` as a
+      whole is optional in the schema, with its four subfields Recommended
+      individually when the object is present — matches this spec exactly.
 - [x] `specs/TargetLedgerSpecification.md` — entry-type table matches
       `schemas/ledger_entry.schema.json`. **Resolved 2026-07-29:** the
       `administrative-correction` ambiguity was reviewed and split into