From 333ead4a60884d089ccfa2ac7b264bb62e46cbbc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tegwick Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 20:05:39 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] WP-0003-T06 review: accept PhaseManifestSpecification.md, no fix needed MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 --- .../TREV-WP-0003-normative-core-extraction.md | 16 ++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/workplans/TREV-WP-0003-normative-core-extraction.md b/workplans/TREV-WP-0003-normative-core-extraction.md index 317e40b..9f67973 100644 --- a/workplans/TREV-WP-0003-normative-core-extraction.md +++ b/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