diff --git a/.forgeplan/evidence/EVID-136-code-review-of-prd-079-blog-scaffold-concerns.md b/.forgeplan/evidence/EVID-136-code-review-of-prd-079-blog-scaffold-concerns.md index f4caa8de..4e86192f 100644 --- a/.forgeplan/evidence/EVID-136-code-review-of-prd-079-blog-scaffold-concerns.md +++ b/.forgeplan/evidence/EVID-136-code-review-of-prd-079-blog-scaffold-concerns.md @@ -21,7 +21,18 @@ One-line justification: Build passes and all RFC-011 invariants hold structurall ## Structured Fields -verdict: concerns +verdict: weakens + + congruence_level: 3 evidence_type: audit @@ -84,3 +95,4 @@ evidence_type: audit + diff --git a/.forgeplan/notes/NOTE-052-verdict-is-a-direction-not-a-review-status.md b/.forgeplan/notes/NOTE-052-verdict-is-a-direction-not-a-review-status.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..a4292882 --- /dev/null +++ b/.forgeplan/notes/NOTE-052-verdict-is-a-direction-not-a-review-status.md @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +--- +depth: tactical +id: NOTE-052 +kind: note +links: +- target: PRD-086 + relation: informs +status: draft +title: 'verdict: is a direction, not a review status' +--- + +--- +assigned_number: 52 +created: 2026-09-07 +predicted_number: 52 +slug: note-verdict-is-a-direction-not-a-review-status +updated: 2026-09-07 +--- + +# `verdict:` is a direction, not a review status + +## What happened + +`EVID-136` — a code review of the blog scaffold — declared `verdict: concerns`. +There is no such value. The scorer accepted three: `supports`, `weakens`, +`refutes`. + +Until PRD-086 FR-008 the unrecognised value fell through to `supports` and +scored **1.0**, so a review whose own summary read *"three issues require coder +attention before merge"* counted as full confirmation of the thing it objected +to. `PRD-079` and `RFC-011` carried that 1.0 for three weeks. + +FR-008 made the fall-through fail closed, which is what surfaced it. Fixed by +setting `weakens`: the review does not refute the PRD, it lowers confidence in +the state reviewed. Scores now read 0.30 / 0.30 / 0.20 — the first honest +numbers those three artifacts have had. + +## The trap worth naming + +`CONCERNS` is a real word in this project: it is one of the three verdicts a +Profile-B reviewer returns (`PASS` / `CONCERNS` / `BLOCKER`). The author wrote +their review status into a field that wants something else, and both vocabularies +are correct in their own place. + +The pack's `## Verdict` heading said `CONCERNS` too, which is right — that is +prose about the review. The structured field beneath it is a different question: +**which way does this evidence push the claim.** A review can be CONCERNS and +still be `weakens`; it could equally be CONCERNS and `supports` if the concerns +are cosmetic. + +Rule of thumb when writing an EvidencePack: + +- `supports` — the claim is more likely true because of this +- `weakens` — less likely, or true only under narrower conditions +- `refutes` — the claim as stated is wrong + +Review verdicts, test outcomes and CI statuses belong in the prose, not in this +field. + +## Scale + +One pack in 173. The discipline holds — which is exactly why nobody noticed the +one that did not, and why the gate had to exist rather than the convention. + +Related: PRD-086 FR-008, PROB-101. + + diff --git a/.forgeplan/prds/PRD-086-the-trust-layer-reports-values-it-never-computed.md b/.forgeplan/prds/PRD-086-the-trust-layer-reports-values-it-never-computed.md index 01a44499..9f52b5f0 100644 --- a/.forgeplan/prds/PRD-086-the-trust-layer-reports-values-it-never-computed.md +++ b/.forgeplan/prds/PRD-086-the-trust-layer-reports-values-it-never-computed.md @@ -141,3 +141,4 @@ GitHub: #325, #392, #393, #330. +