{"record_type":"request","request_id":"implementation-kickoff-hostile-validation-2026-10-26","prompt_exact":"Begin implementation plan. Iterate to hostile validation agree with 98% accuracy and completenesd.","inherited_scope_receipt":"docs/repo_review_receipt.jsonl","scope_context":["Wordpairs implementation under requirements v2.4, FR-01–FR-22, TR-01–TR-31, AC-01–AC-51.","Strict Byrd Development Process v4: Phase 0 planning-only; then all active-AC contract tests validated with mocks before any project implementation code; later real-system evidence remains distinct.","Vercel from sharpninja/wordpairs, no GitHub Actions, Vercel Hobby/Supabase Free, GPL-2.0-only, deployment/release SWBOM and archive requirements.","Current subtask: begin implementation planning, perform independent hostile subagent review, remediate iteratively until accuracy and completeness each reach at least 98%."]}
{"record_type":"rubric","scoring_method":"Each measure is the arithmetic mean of five evidence-backed dimensions. Threshold is at least 98% for both accuracy and completeness. Review target must be an immutable GitHub commit. The final reviewer output is appended after review; that expected post-review append is not treated as a target defect.","accuracy_dimensions":["Factual/process correctness","Cross-document consistency","AC mapping/counts","Status truthfulness and mock/integration distinction","Repository/baseline evidence"],"completeness_dimensions":["Coverage of implementation request","Phase 0 readiness/gate clarity","Mock contracts vs real-system evidence","Decision/blocker coverage","Validation evidence quality"]}
{"record_type":"hostile_review","iteration":1,"reviewer_output":{"reviewer_id":"phase0_hostile_review","iteration":1,"scores":{"accuracy_percent":97,"completeness_percent":95.2,"threshold_percent_each_measure":98,"meets_threshold":false},"rubric_evidence":{"accuracy":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Factual correctness and process compliance","score":97,"evidence":"Tracker correctly says no executable tests or implementation exist, but narrows the user’s global all-tests-before-coding gate to per-increment testing."},{"dimension":"Cross-document consistency","score":93,"evidence":"Planning documents agree on status but implementation plan permits coding while later AC tests remain planned."},{"dimension":"AC mapping correctness","score":99,"evidence":"Inventory maps AC-01–AC-51 to 62 planned case IDs."},{"dimension":"Status truthfulness","score":100,"evidence":"No reviewed document claims tests have been authored or passed; Phase 0 is not passed."},{"dimension":"Artifact and repository correctness","score":96,"evidence":"Reviewed additions are untracked and local checkout is not anchored to target commit."}]},"completeness":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Coverage of request and project scope","score":95,"evidence":"Phase 0 covers requirements, architecture, deployment, license and supply chain, but omits the explicit global mock gate."},{"dimension":"Phase readiness","score":100,"evidence":"Phase 0 is correctly marked in progress and identifies open decisions."},{"dimension":"Test and mock prerequisites","score":93,"evidence":"First-increment fake boundaries are proposed, but global pre-code validation is missing."},{"dimension":"Decision and blocker coverage","score":97,"evidence":"Major blockers are listed, though the testing gate is weakly sequenced."},{"dimension":"Validation and evidence quality","score":91,"evidence":"No immutable reviewed Git commit; proposed tests are not executable evidence."}]}},"findings":[{"severity":"P1 process gate","finding":"The plan relaxes all-tests-before-coding into a per-increment rule.","specific_corrective_action":"Require every active AC test to be mock-validated before any project implementation code."},{"severity":"P1 gate sequencing","finding":"Executable test authoring is included before Phase 0 passes.","specific_corrective_action":"Keep Phase 0 planning/specification only; author tests only after approval."},{"severity":"P2 repository evidence","finding":"Reviewed tree is not anchored to a durable GitHub commit.","specific_corrective_action":"Sync reviewed files and re-review exact commit."},{"severity":"P2 mock-evidence limit","finding":"Mocks cannot establish external Vercel/account behavior.","specific_corrective_action":"Separate mock, static, account, staging and deployment evidence."}],"overall_assessment":"Phase 0 is honestly marked in progress, but the plan weakens the global mock-first gate and ambiguously places executable test work before Phase 0 approval. Correct sequencing and durable commit evidence are needed."}}
{"record_type":"hostile_review","iteration":2,"reviewer_output":{"reviewer_id":"phase0_hostile_review","iteration":2,"review_target":{"repository":"sharpninja/wordpairs","branch":"main","commit":"585206b769363d6fb388e8fb05ffa0f72ffcbe87"},"scores":{"accuracy_percent":99,"completeness_percent":96.4,"threshold_percent_each_measure":98,"meets_threshold":false},"rubric_evidence":{"accuracy":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Factual correctness and process compliance","score":99,"evidence":"Phase 0 is planning-only; all active-AC tests must be authored and mock-validated before implementation."},{"dimension":"Cross-document consistency","score":97,"evidence":"Global gate is consistently stated, but deferred decisions could leave tests without final outcomes."},{"dimension":"AC mapping correctness","score":99,"evidence":"51 ACs map to 62 planned IDs."},{"dimension":"Status truthfulness","score":100,"evidence":"No tests/code claimed complete."},{"dimension":"Repository anchoring","score":100,"evidence":"Files fetched at exact commit."}]},"completeness":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Coverage","score":100,"evidence":"Global gate and separate non-mock evidence stated throughout."},{"dimension":"Phase readiness","score":98,"evidence":"Phase 0 is planning-only and requires expected outcomes, but deferred expectations remain possible."},{"dimension":"Mock prerequisites","score":88,"evidence":"Concurrency cases are integration-only and lack separate mock-validatable contract cases."},{"dimension":"Decision coverage","score":96,"evidence":"Decision register is broad, but some open decisions conflict with the global gate."},{"dimension":"Evidence quality","score":100,"evidence":"Status and repository anchoring are explicit."}]}},"findings":[{"severity":"P1 global test gate","finding":"Database concurrency tests are only integration cases; fake behavior cannot prove DB guarantees.","specific_corrective_action":"Separate mock-backed domain/application contract cases from later real database evidence."},{"severity":"P1 unresolved decisions","finding":"Open decisions can leave active AC tests without fixed expected results.","specific_corrective_action":"Resolve all decisions affecting active assertions before Phase 0, or revise affected ACs out of active baseline."}],"overall_assessment":"Global gate and Phase 0 restrictions are corrected; completeness remains below threshold because concurrency test tiers and unresolved expected outcomes are not fully reconciled."}}
{"record_type":"hostile_review","iteration":3,"reviewer_output":{"reviewer_id":"phase0_hostile_review","iteration":3,"review_target":{"repository":"sharpninja/wordpairs","branch":"main","commit":"6fd700a86fd2b272e6f781449fdcf10220c7bec2"},"scores":{"accuracy_percent":98.8,"completeness_percent":97.8,"reported_topline_completeness_percent":97.6,"threshold_percent_each_measure":98,"meets_threshold":false},"rubric_evidence":{"accuracy":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Factual correctness","score":100,"evidence":"Global gate and Phase 0 planning-only rules are clear."},{"dimension":"Consistency","score":94,"evidence":"Stale two-player holdout blocker remains despite requirements v2.3 resolving countdown start."},{"dimension":"AC mapping","score":100,"evidence":"51 ACs and 70 planned IDs."},{"dimension":"Status/evidence distinctions","score":100,"evidence":"Mocks are distinguished from real-system evidence."},{"dimension":"Repository evidence","score":100,"evidence":"Exact immutable commit files fetched."}]},"completeness":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Request scope","score":100,"evidence":"Global gate and all evidence tiers included."},{"dimension":"Phase readiness","score":98,"evidence":"Phase 0 requires fixed outcomes except an interaction remains unresolved."},{"dimension":"Mock vs system evidence","score":100,"evidence":"Contract and integration tiers separated."},{"dimension":"Decision coverage","score":92,"evidence":"Stale blocker and countdown-expiry interaction are not reconciled."},{"dimension":"Validation evidence","score":99,"evidence":"Exact commit and independent count verification."}]}},"findings":[{"severity":"P1 cross-document contradiction","finding":"Plan/tracker still list two-player holdout removal as unresolved, contrary to AC-32."},{"severity":"P2 requirement interaction","finding":"FR-03 prohibits starting with fewer than two but requirements do not define countdown expiry below two."}],"overall_assessment":"The global mock gate and test evidence tiers are correct, but a stale holdout blocker and an undefined below-minimum countdown-expiry outcome keep completeness below threshold. Note: the reviewer’s own top-line completeness (97.6) disagreed with its arithmetic mean (97.8)."}}
{"record_type":"hostile_review","iteration":4,"reviewer_output":{"reviewer_id":"phase0_hostile_review","iteration":4,"review_target":{"repository":"sharpninja/wordpairs","branch":"main","commit":"c2e7ce572ed29ef6aa8cc51119ef527a3dac3a9f"},"scores":{"accuracy_percent":99.8,"completeness_percent":99.8,"threshold_percent_each_measure":98,"meets_threshold":true},"rubric_evidence":{"accuracy":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Factual correctness and process compliance","score":100,"evidence":"Phase 0 planning-only and global mock gate are consistently stated; no tests/code claimed complete."},{"dimension":"Cross-document consistency","score":99,"evidence":"Requirements v2.3 and planning docs agree: holdout removal starts/locks countdown with one player; below-minimum expiry is a separate Phase 0 decision."},{"dimension":"AC mapping and counts","score":100,"evidence":"AC-01–51 map to 71 planned IDs, including decision-gated AC-31-T04."},{"dimension":"Status and evidence distinction","score":100,"evidence":"Mock contracts and real database evidence are separate; tests remain planned only."},{"dimension":"Repository/baseline evidence","score":100,"evidence":"Exact immutable commit and blobs verified; baseline versions match."}]},"completeness":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Implementation request coverage","score":100,"evidence":"Global gate, Phase 0 restriction, inventory, and evidence tiers are covered."},{"dimension":"Phase 0 readiness","score":100,"evidence":"Every active expected outcome must be fixed; executable tests and implementation are prohibited before approval."},{"dimension":"Mock contracts vs real systems","score":100,"evidence":"Database concurrency/idempotency/outbox real evidence is separate from mock application contracts."},{"dimension":"Decision/blocker coverage","score":99,"evidence":"Stale holdout issue is removed; countdown-expiry consequence is tracked as Phase 0 blocker and AC-31-T04."},{"dimension":"Validation evidence","score":100,"evidence":"Exact commit, files, and 51/71 counts independently verified."}]}},"findings":[],"overall_assessment":"Iteration-3 findings are corrected. Both scores exceed 98%. Phase 0 remains not passed; no executable tests or implementation code should yet be authored."}}
{"record_type":"intermediate_scorecard","final_review_commit":"c2e7ce572ed29ef6aa8cc51119ef527a3dac3a9f","final_accuracy_percent":99.8,"final_completeness_percent":99.8,"threshold_percent_each_measure":98,"meets_threshold":true,"phase0_status":"not passed","implementation_status":"no project implementation code or executable tests authored","remaining_gate":"Resolve all open decisions affecting active expected results, including FR-03 countdown expiry below the two-player minimum; then approve Phase 0, author and mock-validate all active-AC contract tests, and only then begin implementation.","superseded_by":"User clarified two-player holdout behavior after this reviewed commit; a new hostile iteration is required."}
{"record_type":"user_steering","exact_text":"I already decided that 2 player lobbies do not boot the holdout","effect":"Requirements v2.4/AC-32 now state that in an exactly two-player lobby the holdout is not removed after the five-second warning and countdown does not begin until both players are ready. Rooms with more than two players retain the boot-and-countdown behavior. The prior one-player remainder decision is obsolete."}
{"record_type":"hostile_review","iteration":5,"reviewer_output":{"reviewer_id":"phase0_hostile_review","iteration":5,"review_target":{"repository":"sharpninja/wordpairs","branch":"main","commit":"23cacac111a5a0add9535416c34c0186c783471d","files_fetched_at_exact_commit":true},"scores":{"accuracy_percent":97.4,"completeness_percent":98.2,"threshold_percent_each_measure":98,"meets_threshold":false},"rubric_evidence":{"accuracy":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Factual and process correctness","score":99,"evidence":"Phase 0 planning-only and global mock gate are stated accurately."},{"dimension":"Cross-document consistency","score":88,"evidence":"The overview, FR-19 and FR-20 still described unconditional holdout removal, contradicting the exactly-two-player exception."},{"dimension":"AC mapping and counts","score":100,"evidence":"51 AC identifiers and 71 planned test IDs; AC-32 contains larger-room, integration-race and two-player cases."},{"dimension":"Status and evidence distinction","score":100,"evidence":"Tests are planned; mock contracts are separated from database integration evidence."},{"dimension":"Repository/baseline evidence","score":100,"evidence":"Exact SHA fetched; v2.4 labels and JSONL receipt verified."}]},"completeness":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Implementation request coverage","score":96,"evidence":"The plan captures the exception, but duplicated requirements still describe superseded behavior."},{"dimension":"Phase 0 readiness","score":100,"evidence":"No executable tests or implementation before Phase 0; global mock gate precedes implementation."},{"dimension":"Mock vs real-system evidence","score":100,"evidence":"Application fakes do not claim to prove database behavior."},{"dimension":"Decision/blocker coverage","score":95,"evidence":"The duplicated requirement text makes the baseline unclear."},{"dimension":"Validation evidence","score":100,"evidence":"Exact SHA, blob metadata, AC/test counts and JSONL validity checked."}]}},"findings":[{"severity":"P1 requirement contradiction","path":"requirements overview, FR-19, FR-20","finding":"These sections still say every expired unready holdout is removed and countdown begins, contradicting the two-player exception in FR-03/AC-32.","specific_corrective_action":"Update all duplicated readiness rules and recheck the requirements document."}],"overall_assessment":"The implementation plan, tracker, inventory, architecture and receipt reflect the new rule, but the v2.4 requirements still have three unconditional statements. Correct them before accepting the baseline; Phase 0 remains not passed."}}
{"record_type":"remediation","iteration":5,"changes":"Updated the lobby overview, FR-19 and FR-20 to retain a holdout in exactly two-player rooms and wait without countdown until both players are ready; rooms over two continue boot-and-countdown. Rechecked AC-32 and the confirmed decision register row."}
{"record_type":"hostile_review","iteration":6,"reviewer_output":{"reviewer_id":"phase0_hostile_review","iteration":6,"review_target":{"repository":"sharpninja/wordpairs","branch":"main","commit":"160a6e52b48329fcc1a6d7cebd5a949c692cd529","verification":"Fetched all seven requested files at the exact commit ref. GitHub returned URLs containing that SHA.","file_blobs":{"README.md":"8a395d61ccdfa8f34465154b2f84d704c6feb8bd","docs/word_association_game_requirements.md":"3f9e09020609417491ee68f7d3189fc49ae93da2","docs/implementation_plan.md":"6df33e89c6043e99ccef4c0c640aa000daaa893e","docs/implementation_phase0_execution.md":"ffb3a5f16b4b9f6fd6f544c045cca92b74a0d6a6","docs/ac_test_inventory.md":"56c9eb239c805e67c3057edd8b299d21030c36bc","docs/architecture_design.md":"8716c2717019915dee407994458841455e8e5c84","docs/implementation_kickoff_receipt.jsonl":"4963bf0e13ec4a4a59d65c6828b73f50411fc543"}},"scores":{"accuracy_percent":100,"completeness_percent":100,"threshold_percent_each_measure":98,"meets_threshold":true},"rubric_evidence":{"accuracy":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Factual and process correctness","score":100,"evidence":"Phase 0 is planning-only and all active-AC contract tests must pass mock validation before project implementation; no completion claims."},{"dimension":"Cross-document consistency","score":100,"evidence":"Overview, FR-03, FR-19, FR-20, AC-32, plan, tracker and architecture consistently describe the >2 vs exactly-2 split."},{"dimension":"AC mapping and counts","score":100,"evidence":"51 distinct AC IDs and 71 planned test IDs; AC-32 cases separate warning, >2 boot, database race, and exactly-two exception."},{"dimension":"Status and mock/integration distinction","score":100,"evidence":"Tests remain planned; mock contracts and real database evidence remain separate."},{"dimension":"Repository/baseline evidence","score":100,"evidence":"Exact SHA and file blobs verified; v2.4 consistent; receipt JSONL valid and records prior remediation."}]},"completeness":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Implementation request coverage","score":100,"evidence":"The two-player behavior and larger-room behavior are reflected in requirements and planning."},{"dimension":"Phase 0 readiness","score":100,"evidence":"Phase 0 is not passed/planning-only; global mock gate precedes implementation."},{"dimension":"Mock vs real-system evidence","score":100,"evidence":"Tests distinguish application contracts from persistence/external evidence."},{"dimension":"Decision/blocker coverage","score":100,"evidence":"Two-player behavior is confirmed; separate match-start result below two players remains an open decision."},{"dimension":"Validation and evidence quality","score":100,"evidence":"Commit/blob metadata and independent 51/71 counts; JSONL parses."}]}},"findings":[],"overall_assessment":"The iteration-5 contradiction is corrected in the requirements overview, FR-03, FR-19, FR-20 and AC-32. The AC inventory contains 51 ACs and 71 planned IDs. The mock/integration distinction is accurate. Requirements v2.4 is consistent. Both scores are 100%. Phase 0 remains not passed; no executable tests or implementation code yet."}}
{"record_type":"intermediate_scorecard","review_target_commit":"160a6e52b48329fcc1a6d7cebd5a949c692cd529","accuracy_percent":100,"completeness_percent":100,"threshold_percent_each_measure":98,"meets_threshold":true,"review_iterations":6,"phase0_status":"not passed","implementation_status":"no project implementation code or executable tests authored","next_gate":"Resolve remaining decisions that affect active AC expected outcomes; approve Phase 0; author and mock-validate the complete active-AC contract suite; only then begin project implementation.","superseded_by":"User clarified deployment topology is not a Phase 0 gate; re-review required."}
{"record_type":"user_steering","exact_text":"Deployment topology is not a phase 0 gate","effect":"Moved concrete Staging/Production branch and project mapping, and account-capacity confirmation, to the Phase 1 provisioning-entry decision. Phase 0 retains deployment requirements/constraints and abstract environment-isolation contract expectations only."}
{"record_type":"hostile_review","iteration":7,"reviewer_output":{"reviewer_id":"phase0_hostile_review","iteration":7,"review_target":{"repository":"sharpninja/wordpairs","branch":"main","commit":"4222e12d910e7cd434bcdfdb81e1c04fe40d1ce1","files_fetched_at_exact_commit":true},"scores":{"accuracy_percent":97.8,"completeness_percent":95.6,"threshold_percent_each_measure":98,"meets_threshold":false},"rubric_evidence":{"accuracy":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Factual/process correctness","score":99,"evidence":"Phase 0 planning-only/global mock gate is stated; tracker still requires account capacity in Phase 0 checklist."},{"dimension":"Cross-document consistency","score":90,"evidence":"Tracker status and Phase 1 subsection place topology in Phase 1, but Phase 0 exit checklist contradicts that."},{"dimension":"AC mapping/counts","score":100,"evidence":"51 ACs and 71 test IDs; generic isolation contracts do not require concrete topology."},{"dimension":"Status/mock distinction","score":100,"evidence":"No test/code completion claims; mocks are separate from real account/deployment checks."},{"dimension":"Repository evidence","score":100,"evidence":"Exact SHA fetch, receipt parse and steering history verified."}]},"completeness":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Request coverage","score":100,"evidence":"Topology moved to Phase 1 in plan/deployment plan/tracker and inventory."},{"dimension":"Phase gate clarity","score":90,"evidence":"Account-capacity checkbox still appears in Phase 0 exit checklist."},{"dimension":"Mock/real evidence","score":100,"evidence":"Generic mock isolation contract is distinct from account and deployment checks."},{"dimension":"Decision placement","score":88,"evidence":"The remaining checkbox makes account eligibility a Phase 0 blocker."},{"dimension":"Validation evidence","score":100,"evidence":"Counts and exact commit independently verified."}]}},"findings":[{"severity":"P1 phase-gate contradiction","path":"docs/implementation_phase0_execution.md, section 6","finding":"Phase 0 exit checklist still requires confirming Vercel/Supabase account capacity and Hobby eligibility, contradicting the Phase 1 topology decision.","specific_corrective_action":"Move account checks to Phase 1 provisioning entry and remove the Phase 0 checkbox."}],"overall_assessment":"The topology steering is otherwise reflected correctly; one Phase 0 checklist item remains contradictory. Scores are below threshold until moved."}}
{"record_type":"remediation","iteration":7,"changes":"Removed Vercel Hobby eligibility and Supabase Free capacity confirmation from the Phase 0 exit checklist and added both under the Phase 1 provisioning-entry checklist."}
{"record_type":"current_status","review_target_pending":"GitHub main after moving account-capacity confirmation from Phase 0 to Phase 1 checklist","review_iteration":8,"status":"Awaiting hostile reviewer output. Iteration 7 is a historical review of commit 4222e12d910e7cd434bcdfdb81e1c04fe40d1ce1.","phase0_status":"not passed"}