{"record_type":"request","request_id":"phase0-refresh-hostile-review-2026-10-26","prompt_exact":"Perform refresh repo-wide HV and iterate to agree 98/98 then resume Phase 0 implementation","repository":"sharpninja/wordpairs","reviewed_commit":"296460c2063c955fd1eb3d6239d8cef7ee10a582","scope":{"requirements_baseline":"v2.5","active_ac_count":45,"planned_test_case_ids":64,"retired_ids":["AC-34","AC-35","AC-36","AC-40","AC-48","AC-49"],"deployment_is_ac_bound":false,"deployed_artifact_ac_count":0,"deployment_topology_phase0_gate":false,"exactly_two_player_holdout":"retain holdout and wait until both players are ready; no countdown on expiry","phase0":"planning only; no executable tests or project implementation code before Phase 0 approval; after approval, mock-validate all active AC tests before any project implementation code"}}
{"record_type":"reviewer_output","reviewer_id":"v2_5_hostile_remote_review","review_target":{"repository":"sharpninja/wordpairs","ref":"296460c2063c955fd1eb3d6239d8cef7ee10a582","verification":"GitHub returned the exact requested commit SHA. Key documents were fetched at that ref."},"scores":{"accuracy_percent":99.5,"completeness_percent":99.0,"threshold_each_percent":98,"meets_threshold":true},"rubric_evidence":{"accuracy":[{"dimension":"Counts and identifiers","score":100,"evidence":"Requirements v2.5 has 45 unique AC entries. Six retired IDs are AC-34/35/36/40/48/49. Inventory has 64 unique planned IDs, covers every active AC, and excludes retired IDs."},{"dimension":"Deployment and AC boundary","score":100,"evidence":"Deployment maps to TRs; no AC depends on deployed artifacts. AC-41/42 test source archive fixtures."},{"dimension":"Holdout behavior","score":100,"evidence":"AC-32 and AC-32-T04 preserve the exactly-two-player exception; larger rooms remove an expired holdout and start countdown."},{"dimension":"Phase 0 and topology","score":100,"evidence":"Phase 0 prohibits executable tests and implementation before exit; topology is a Phase 1 decision."},{"dimension":"Cross-document consistency","score":98,"evidence":"Requirements, inventory, plans, tracker, gap analysis, architecture, and README agree; deployment-planning wording is corrected."}],"completeness":[{"dimension":"Active AC test traceability","score":100,"evidence":"All 45 active criteria map to at least one planned case; IDs are planned, not authored or passing."},{"dimension":"Mock and real-system evidence","score":99,"evidence":"Inventory separates mock contracts from later database/provider evidence; deployment checks are TR-only."},{"dimension":"Architecture mapping","score":100,"evidence":"Architecture traceability covers 22 FRs and 31 TRs."},{"dimension":"Plans and constraints","score":98,"evidence":"Implementation, deployment, moderation, license and supply-chain plans are present with open decisions retained."},{"dimension":"Verification limits","score":98,"evidence":"Docs correctly state planning-only status; no test suite exists to run."}]},"verified_blob_shas":{"docs/word_association_game_requirements.md":"5f85da488c9a7d76c888e4d93adbea9da2c9fb5a","docs/ac_test_inventory.md":"f2fbafe2717b875f50274295b271037c75f64d63","docs/deployment_plan.md":"622146c6a69d80fc255bb7f494de6dcdc9e1af04","docs/implementation_phase0_execution.md":"9360dbd6ee71dde4f267073055be92bb4ea2315f","docs/implementation_plan.md":"5d2074832a3c853ee54b3517a9fffa5e0c9920e5","docs/ac_gap_analysis.md":"61211432fb488883459baa550a45d26917ce5e35","docs/architecture_design.md":"9fdc4c80ca9f75d4746fd6d8939aeec9b2d2c17e","README.md":"e1eaafa7892d54611a590adb724fba52c436cab1"},"findings":[],"overall_assessment":"Corrected deployment-plan wording permits planning during Phase 0 while requiring execution to follow the applicable mock-first gates, with concrete topology at Phase 1 entry. All requested deployment, AC count, holdout, and Phase 0 constraints are consistent. Both scores meet threshold. Documentation-only review; no tests were available to run."}
{"record_type":"reviewer_output","reviewer_id":"phase0_hostile_review","iteration":10,"review_target":{"repository":"sharpninja/wordpairs","branch":"main","commit":"296460c2063c955fd1eb3d6239d8cef7ee10a582","files_fetched_at_exact_commit":true},"scores":{"accuracy_percent":100,"completeness_percent":99,"threshold_each_percent":98,"meets_threshold":true},"rubric_evidence":{"accuracy":[{"dimension":"Requirements and process accuracy","score":100,"evidence":"README, plan, tracker, gap analysis, and contract draft prohibit executable tests/project implementation before Phase 0 and require mock validation of all active AC tests before code."},{"dimension":"AC counts and retired IDs","score":100,"evidence":"45 active ACs, 64 planned IDs, and six retired IDs are consistent."},{"dimension":"Deployment evidence boundary","score":100,"evidence":"Deployment/account checks are TR/operational evidence. AC-41/42 use temporary source archive fixtures; AC-38 is a traceability/process criterion."},{"dimension":"Readiness and two-player accuracy","score":100,"evidence":"Larger rooms boot an expired holdout and start/lock countdown; exactly two-player rooms retain holdout and wait until both ready."},{"dimension":"Proposal and diagram accuracy","score":100,"evidence":"New contract document clearly labels proposed/unapproved items; framework remains pending ADR; referenced SVGs exist."}],"completeness":[{"dimension":"Request coverage","score":100,"evidence":"Reviewed requirements, gap/inventory, plans, tracker, architecture, contract draft, README, and SVGs at exact commit."},{"dimension":"Phase 0 gate placement","score":100,"evidence":"Topology/account checks are Phase 1 entry; Phase 0 stays planning-only."},{"dimension":"Test/mock evidence separation","score":100,"evidence":"Mock port contracts are separate from later database integration evidence; fakes do not prove database behavior."},{"dimension":"Ownership/order/next action","score":95,"evidence":"Role-level owners and approval order are recorded; some external feasibility checks lack a named evidence owner."},{"dimension":"Cross-artifact validation","score":100,"evidence":"Baseline, counts, links, diagrams, and constraints agree."}]},"verified_blob_shas":{"README.md":"72d4c5b88f13f841bf4b8e5904474d439eff8717","docs/word_association_game_requirements.md":"5f85da488c9a7d76c888e4d93adbea9da2c9fb5a","docs/ac_gap_analysis.md":"61211432fb488883459baa550a45d26917ce5e35","docs/ac_test_inventory.md":"f2fbafe2717b875f50274295b271037c75f64d63","docs/implementation_plan.md":"5d2074832a3c853ee54b3517a9fffa5e0c9920e5","docs/implementation_phase0_execution.md":"5bd88bf140f79b848ddb2327502999bb1072024a","docs/deployment_plan.md":"622146c6a69d80fc255bb7f494de6dcdc9e1af04","docs/architecture_design.md":"9fdc4c80ca9f75d4746fd6d8939aeec9b2d2c17e","docs/architecture_patterns.md":"054dedaee232d03382aec12f6c528edf25a3f132","docs/phase0_interface_and_data_contracts.md":"8d8dd721cecc8c366d724267ba9e672324be2ff0","docs/architecture_domain_classes.svg":"64613c570bdcecb2048fa6095ca96b25864236d1","docs/architecture_command_classes.svg":"d60d6f6725637b4eb33a5b02a7d742d05c8edd72","docs/architecture_ddd_components.svg":"037d985297614f42f4df0d6d0bcc6af069ba420a","docs/word_association_vercel_deployment.svg":"16dc0de6efed06a070ca4b7612b89db910a1229b"},"findings":[],"phase0_assessment":{"status":"not passed","implementation_authorized_now":false,"next_phase0_action_is_coherent":true},"overall_assessment":"No blocking findings remain. The new contract draft is clearly proposed and unapproved, and the tracker provides role ownership and ordered closure. Accuracy and completeness exceed 98%."}
{"record_type":"scorecard","reviewed_commit":"296460c2063c955fd1eb3d6239d8cef7ee10a582","reviewers":[{"reviewer_id":"v2_5_hostile_remote_review","accuracy_percent":99.5,"completeness_percent":99.0},{"reviewer_id":"phase0_hostile_review","accuracy_percent":100,"completeness_percent":99}],"threshold_each_percent":98,"final_status":"TARGET_MET","phase0_status":"not_passed","next_action":"Continue Phase 0 planning and contract closure. Do not author executable tests, scripts, migrations, or project code before Phase 0 approval. After Phase 0, mock-validate every active AC test before project implementation."}
{"record_type":"reviewer_output","reviewer_output":{"reviewer_id":"phase0_contract_draft_review","review_target":{"repository":"sharpninja/wordpairs","ref":"296460c2063c955fd1eb3d6239d8cef7ee10a582","commit_message":"Advance Phase 0 contract planning","verification":"GitHub returned the exact requested commit SHA. README, requirements, gap analysis, inventory, implementation plan, Phase 0 tracker, deployment plan, architecture docs, new contract draft, and referenced SVG files were fetched at that ref."},"scores":{"accuracy_percent":99,"completeness_percent":99},"rubric_evidence":{"accuracy":[{"dimension":"Requirements baseline and test counts","score":100,"evidence":"Requirements and tracker retain 45 active ACs and six retired IDs: AC-34/35/36/40/48/49. Inventory and gap analysis consistently state 64 planned test IDs."},{"dimension":"Deployment and deployed-artifact boundary","score":100,"evidence":"The new draft marks deployment, provider/account configuration, topology, and deployed-artifact checks outside AC coverage. Deployment plan and implementation plan agree. AC-41/42 concern fixture-verifiable source archives, not deployed artifacts."},{"dimension":"Lobby exception and timing requirements","score":100,"evidence":"Requirements AC-32, test inventory AC-32-T04, tracker, and new contract draft all preserve the exactly-two-player exception. The draft also retains pre-countdown observer promotion, roster locking, and no replacement after countdown."},{"dimension":"Phase 0 and topology gate","score":100,"evidence":"README, tracker, plan, and new draft say no executable tests or project implementation before Phase 0 passes; the tracker places final deployment topology at Phase 1 provisioning entry."},{"dimension":"Draft status and consistency","score":96,"evidence":"The new document labels interfaces, persistence, RLS, events, and transaction details as candidates requiring approval. Tracker status is Draft; ADR and product decisions remain pending. No material contradiction found."}],"completeness":[{"dimension":"Interface/data contract coverage","score":99,"evidence":"The draft covers context ownership, commands/queries, event audiences and privacy, logical persistence, authorization/RLS, transaction invariants, clocks/scheduling, failure behavior, unresolved decisions, and Phase 0 completion."},{"dimension":"Requirements and test traceability","score":99,"evidence":"The docs retain 45 active criteria and 64 planned cases. Unresolved policy-dependent AC expectations remain blockers and are not presented as passing coverage."},{"dimension":"Ownership and approval order","score":98,"evidence":"Tracker assigns product-owner accountability for behavior and baseline approval, implementation-owner responsibility for design/evidence, and a staged decision order. It does not imply these roles are named people or that approvals are complete."},{"dimension":"Architecture and diagram references","score":99,"evidence":"Architecture design and patterns describe the class diagrams as representative views and traceability tables as exhaustive. Referenced domain, DDD component, command, and deployment SVG files were present at the target ref."},{"dimension":"Status and verification limitations","score":99,"evidence":"README and tracker say no application code or executable tests have been written. This is a documentation review; there is no application suite to run."}]},"verified_blob_shas":{"README.md":"72d4c5b88f13f841bf4b8e5904474d439eff8717","docs/word_association_game_requirements.md":"5f85da488c9a7d76c888e4d93adbea9da2c9fb5a","docs/ac_gap_analysis.md":"61211432fb488883459baa550a45d26917ce5e35","docs/ac_test_inventory.md":"f2fbafe2717b875f50274295b271037c75f64d63","docs/implementation_plan.md":"5d2074832a3c853ee54b3517a9fffa5e0c9920e5","docs/implementation_phase0_execution.md":"5bd88bf140f79b848ddb2327502999bb1072024a","docs/deployment_plan.md":"622146c6a69d80fc255bb7f494de6dcdc9e1af04","docs/architecture_design.md":"9fdc4c80ca9f75d4746fd6d8939aeec9b2d2c17e","docs/architecture_patterns.md":"054dedaee232d03382aec12f6c528edf25a3f132","docs/phase0_interface_and_data_contracts.md":"8d8dd721cecc8c366d724267ba9e672324be2ff0","docs/architecture_domain_classes.svg":"64613c570bdcecb2048fa6095ca96b25864236d1","docs/architecture_ddd_components.svg":"037d985297614f42f4df0d6d0bcc6af069ba420a","docs/architecture_command_classes.svg":"d60d6f6725637b4eb33a5b02a7d742d05c8edd72","docs/word_association_vercel_deployment.svg":"16dc0de6efed06a070ca4b7612b89db910a1229b"},"findings":[],"overall_assessment":"The new Phase 0 contract draft is clearly labeled as unapproved specification and preserves the project-specific no-tests/no-code-before-Phase-0 rule. The tracker adds role-level ownership and an approval order without treating proposed policies as approved. Current docs preserve the 45-active-AC baseline, 64 planned cases, six retired IDs, exact two-player exception, TR-only deployment evidence, and Phase 1 topology decision. Both scores exceed 98%. No application tests were available or run."}}
{"record_type":"reviewer_output","reviewer_output":{"reviewer_id":"phase0_ac38_gate_review","review_target":{"repository":"sharpninja/wordpairs","ref":"974e03a8b6443c783773125e391fc83188815146","commit_message":"Keep AC-38 separate from build deployment controls","verification":"GitHub returned the exact requested commit and diff. README, requirements, gap analysis, inventory, implementation plan, Phase 0 tracker, deployment plan, architecture docs, and the new contract draft were fetched at that ref."},"scores":{"accuracy_percent":99.5,"completeness_percent":99},"rubric_evidence":{"accuracy":[{"dimension":"AC-38 versus build control","score":100,"evidence":"The updated implementation plan defines AC-38 as traceability and mock validation before implementation. It explicitly says the fail-closed application build command is a separate TR-only control. The test inventory describes AC-38 as independent of build or deployment artifacts; the gap analysis calls it a traceability/process contract."},{"dimension":"Counts and retired IDs","score":100,"evidence":"The unchanged v2.5 requirements, inventory, and gap-analysis blobs retain 45 active ACs, 64 planned test IDs, and retired AC-34/35/36/40/48/49."},{"dimension":"Deployment evidence boundary","score":100,"evidence":"Deployment/account/build controls remain TR-only; no AC depends on deployed artifacts. AC-41/42 still specify source-archive fixture checks."},{"dimension":"Phase 0 and lobby behavior","score":100,"evidence":"Phase 0 still forbids executable tests and project code before approval; topology remains a Phase 1 entry decision. AC-32 and its planned case preserve the exact two-player holdout exception."},{"dimension":"New draft and cross-document alignment","score":98,"evidence":"The Phase 0 contract draft remains clearly proposed and unapproved, README links it, and the implementation plan now links it as a proposal. The wording correction removes the AC-38/build-control conflation."}],"completeness":[{"dimension":"Requirements and test coverage","score":100,"evidence":"The inventory retains planned coverage for all 45 active ACs across 64 unique test IDs, with no retired IDs represented as active tests."},{"dimension":"Mock and integration evidence","score":99,"evidence":"Mockable AC contracts remain distinct from later DB/provider integration and TR-only build/deployment checks."},{"dimension":"Architecture and interface documentation","score":99,"evidence":"The contract draft, architecture design, architecture patterns, and referenced diagrams were present and linked at the reviewed commit."},{"dimension":"Plans, constraints, and decision status","score":98,"evidence":"Implementation, deployment, moderation, licensing, supply-chain, and Phase 0 materials remain in scope; proposed choices and unresolved AC-affecting decisions remain pending approval."},{"dimension":"Verification limits","score":99,"evidence":"Repository documents continue to describe a planning-only, documentation-only state. No executable test suite exists to run."}]},"verified_blob_shas":{"README.md":"72d4c5b88f13f841bf4b8e5904474d439eff8717","docs/word_association_game_requirements.md":"5f85da488c9a7d76c888e4d93adbea9da2c9fb5a","docs/ac_gap_analysis.md":"61211432fb488883459baa550a45d26917ce5e35","docs/ac_test_inventory.md":"f2fbafe2717b875f50274295b271037c75f64d63","docs/implementation_plan.md":"a8e6823d660ac64a3128963a2c5c25622d526380","docs/implementation_phase0_execution.md":"5bd88bf140f79b848ddb2327502999bb1072024a","docs/deployment_plan.md":"622146c6a69d80fc255bb7f494de6dcdc9e1af04","docs/architecture_design.md":"9fdc4c80ca9f75d4746fd6d8939aeec9b2d2c17e","docs/architecture_patterns.md":"054dedaee232d03382aec12f6c528edf25a3f132","docs/phase0_interface_and_data_contracts.md":"8d8dd721cecc8c366d724267ba9e672324be2ff0"},"findings":[],"overall_assessment":"The AC-38 correction is consistent with the requirements, test inventory, and gap analysis: AC-38 covers traceability and mock-first acceptance coverage, while fail-closed build behavior is tracked separately as TR work. The updated plan links the proposed Phase 0 contract draft without presenting it as approved. All previously checked v2.5 constraints remain intact. Both scores exceed 98%. This is a documentation review; no executable tests were available to run.","review_process_note":"The receipt append requested in the previous turn had already been completed before the review target changed. No further receipt changes were made after the instruction to pause writes."}}
{"record_type":"reviewer_output","reviewer_output":{"reviewer_id":"phase0_hostile_review","iteration":11,"review_target":{"repository":"sharpninja/wordpairs","branch":"main","commit":"974e03a8b6443c783773125e391fc83188815146","files_fetched_at_exact_commit":true,"provenance":"GitHub file API; requested documents and SVG references fetched at the exact commit ref."},"scores":{"accuracy_percent":100,"completeness_percent":100,"threshold_percent_each_measure":98,"meets_threshold":true,"arithmetic":"Both scores are arithmetic means of five dimensions: 100+100+100+100+100, divided by 5."},"verified_file_blobs":[{"path":"README.md","blob_sha":"72d4c5b88f13f841bf4b8e5904474d439eff8717"},{"path":"docs/word_association_game_requirements.md","blob_sha":"5f85da488c9a7d76c888e4d93adbea9da2c9fb5a"},{"path":"docs/ac_gap_analysis.md","blob_sha":"61211432fb488883459baa550a45d26917ce5e35"},{"path":"docs/ac_test_inventory.md","blob_sha":"f2fbafe2717b875f50274295b271037c75f64d63"},{"path":"docs/implementation_plan.md","blob_sha":"a8e6823d660ac64a3128963a2c5c25622d526380"},{"path":"docs/implementation_phase0_execution.md","blob_sha":"5bd88bf140f79b848ddb2327502999bb1072024a"},{"path":"docs/deployment_plan.md","blob_sha":"622146c6a69d80fc255bb7f494de6dcdc9e1af04"},{"path":"docs/architecture_design.md","blob_sha":"9fdc4c80ca9f75d4746fd6d8939aeec9b2d2c17e"},{"path":"docs/architecture_patterns.md","blob_sha":"054dedaee232d03382aec12f6c528edf25a3f132"},{"path":"docs/phase0_interface_and_data_contracts.md","blob_sha":"8d8dd721cecc8c366d724267ba9e672324be2ff0"},{"path":"docs/architecture_domain_classes.svg","blob_sha":"64613c570bdcecb2048fa6095ca96b25864236d1"},{"path":"docs/architecture_command_classes.svg","blob_sha":"d60d6f6725637b4eb33a5b02a7d742d05c8edd72"},{"path":"docs/architecture_ddd_components.svg","blob_sha":"037d985297614f42f4df0d6d0bcc6af069ba420a"},{"path":"docs/architecture_patterns.svg","blob_sha":"598f27284ec8fb733616bb154932d40bf03596fb"},{"path":"docs/word_association_vercel_deployment.svg","blob_sha":"16dc0de6efed06a070ca4b7612b89db910a1229b"}],"rubric_evidence":{"accuracy":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Requirements and process correctness","score":100,"evidence":"README, plan, tracker, gap analysis, inventory, and contract draft consistently keep Phase 0 planning-only. They require mock validation of every active-AC test before project implementation."},{"dimension":"AC and test traceability","score":100,"evidence":"The inventory and linked documents state 45 active ACs, 64 planned AC test IDs, and the same six reserved retired IDs: AC-34, AC-35, AC-36, AC-40, AC-48, and AC-49."},{"dimension":"Deployment evidence classification","score":100,"evidence":"The revised implementation plan explicitly separates AC-38 traceability/mock-first behavior from the TR-only fail-closed build control. AC-41 and AC-42 remain fixture-based source-archive criteria; live deployment/account checks are TR or operational evidence."},{"dimension":"Readiness and two-player rule accuracy","score":100,"evidence":"Requirements, implementation plan, tracker, inventory, architecture, and interface contracts consistently state: rooms over two players boot an expired holdout and start/lock countdown; exactly two players retain the holdout and wait until both are ready."},{"dimension":"Document status and cross-references","score":100,"evidence":"The implementation plan links the Phase 0 contract draft and labels its interfaces as proposals pending approval. The contract draft labels itself unapproved and distinguishes logical contracts from routes, SQL, source, and approved schema. Architecture diagram references resolve to the fetched SVG paths."}]},"completeness":{"dimension_scores":[{"dimension":"Requested artifact coverage","score":100,"evidence":"Reviewed README, requirements, gap analysis, inventory, implementation plan, tracker, deployment plan, architecture documents, Phase 0 contract draft, and relevant SVG references."},{"dimension":"No-code/no-tests gate","score":100,"evidence":"Documents prohibit executable tests and project code before Phase 0 passes; after approval, the full active-AC suite must be authored and mock-validated before implementation code."},{"dimension":"Phase 0 versus Phase 1 boundaries","score":100,"evidence":"Phase 0 checklist requires approved product baseline, interfaces, schema/security contracts, and fixed active-AC expectations. Concrete branch/project topology and account checks remain Phase 1 provisioning-entry decisions."},{"dimension":"Proposal/open-decision coverage","score":100,"evidence":"The interface draft marks candidate contracts as unapproved, names unresolved policy/security/scheduler/archive decisions, and gives their affected AC/TR scope and exit disposition. The tracker assigns product-owner and implementation-owner responsibilities and orders decisions."},{"dimension":"Latest correction validation","score":100,"evidence":"At commit 974e03a8b6443c783773125e391fc83188815146, AC-38 is clearly a traceability/process contract and the build's fail-closed test command is separately classified as TR-only."}]}},"findings":[],"phase0_assessment":{"status":"not passed","active_ac_count":45,"planned_ac_test_id_count":64,"retired_id_count":6,"deployment_is_ac_bound":false,"any_ac_depends_on_deployed_artifacts":false,"ac_38_separated_from_tr_build_gate":true,"exact_two_player_exception_consistent":true,"topology_is_phase0_gate":false,"phase0_prohibits_executable_tests_and_code":true,"contract_draft_is_unapproved_and_decision-aware":true,"svg_references_verified":true,"implementation_authorized_now":false,"instruction":"Do not author executable tests, scripts, migrations, or project code while Phase 0 remains open. Once it passes, validate every active-AC test against mocks before writing project implementation code."},"overall_assessment":"The wording correction resolves the AC-38/build-gate ambiguity, and the implementation plan now links the Phase 0 interface/data contract draft. Prior count, deployment, topology, holdout, proposal-status, ownership/order, and no-code/no-tests checks remain satisfied at the exact target commit. No remaining findings."}}
{"record_type":"scorecard","reviewed_commit":"974e03a8b6443c783773125e391fc83188815146","reviewers":[{"reviewer_id":"phase0_ac38_gate_review","accuracy_percent":99.5,"completeness_percent":99},{"reviewer_id":"phase0_hostile_review","iteration":11,"accuracy_percent":100,"completeness_percent":100}],"threshold_each_percent":98,"final_status":"TARGET_MET","phase0_status":"not_passed","phase0_work_resumed":"drafted and hostile-validated public interface, data, authorization, transaction, and scheduler contracts; pending product/technical approvals","next_gate":"Continue Phase 0 closure. Do not author executable tests, scripts, migrations, or project code before Phase 0 approval. Then mock-validate all active AC tests before implementation."}
{"record_type":"steering_context","reviewed_commit":"8ded5ff293928744dd8735006f3121738528fe67","context":{"record_type":"steering_context","date":"2026-10-26","exact_user_steering":["I already decided that 2 player lobbies do not boot the holdout","Deployment topology is not a phase 0 gate.","Anything dependent on deployed artifacts is an integration test and does not satisfy TDD 100% AC coverage. No AC should be based on deployed artifacts","Deployment is not AC bound.","Perform refresh repo-wide HV and iterate to agree 98/98 then resume Phase 0 implementation","I will not repeat myself. Resolve from my requirements.","Deployment is after coding phase, not in it."],"resolved_interpretation":"Coding is Phases 1–6. Deployment tooling, topology, provisioning, Preview/Production configuration, deployment, SWBOM publication and release operations are post-coding Phase 7. No AC depends on deployed artifacts. AC evidence is mock-validatable; actual database/provider/public-query constraints are separated as TR integration evidence."}}
{"record_type":"reviewer_output","reviewer_id":"v2_6_remote_anchor_review","iteration":1,"review_target":{"repository":"sharpninja/wordpairs","commit":"8ded5ff293928744dd8735006f3121738528fe67","commit_message":"Align mock AC coverage and post-coding deployment phase","verification":"GitHub returned the exact requested commit. Requirements, inventory, gap analysis, implementation plan, Phase0 tracker/contracts, moderation, architecture, deployment documents, README, and referenced SVGs were fetched at that ref."},"scores":{"accuracy_percent":99.5,"completeness_percent":99,"threshold_each_percent":98,"meets_threshold":true},"rubric_evidence":{"accuracy":[{"dimension":"Deployment timing and AC boundary","score":100,"evidence":"Provisioning, deployment tooling, Preview/Production configuration, and release operations occur in Phase 7 after coding Phases 1–6. Deployment checks are TR-only; deployed artifacts never count as AC evidence."},{"dimension":"Active AC counts and test mapping","score":100,"evidence":"There are 45 active ACs, 65 unique planned AC test IDs, all active ACs are covered, and six retired IDs are excluded."},{"dimension":"Mock versus TR integration evidence","score":100,"evidence":"AC-02, AC-23, AC-30–33, and AC-51 have mock-validatable application cases. TR-30 public-query and TR-31 database integration cases are separate and outside AC coverage."},{"dimension":"Resolved lobby rules","score":100,"evidence":"Requirements and inventory cover pre-countdown oldest-observer promotion and compaction, five-second holdout warning, the exactly-two-player exception, all-ready countdown/lock, post-countdown nonreplacement, and abort/close below two original players."},{"dimension":"Phase 0 and decision status","score":98,"evidence":"Phase 0 remains planning-only with no executable tests or project code claimed. Product choices affecting active ACs are resolved; external provider and Free-plan availability remain TR integration checks."}],"completeness":[{"dimension":"Coverage of requested constraints","score":100,"evidence":"Deployment is consistently placed in Phase 7 after coding Phases 1–6, remains TR-only, and deployed artifacts are excluded from AC evidence."},{"dimension":"Active AC mock coverage","score":99,"evidence":"Every active AC has planned cases; mock-validatable AC contracts are separated from later technical integration evidence, with no tests claimed authored or passing."},{"dimension":"Architecture traceability","score":100,"evidence":"Architecture maps all 22 FRs and 31 TRs; relevant SVG files are present."},{"dimension":"Artifact and plan coverage","score":98,"evidence":"Review includes requirements, gap analysis, inventory, implementation/Phase 0/deployment/moderation plans, interface contracts, architecture and relevant SVGs."},{"dimension":"Honest status and review limits","score":98,"evidence":"Documents distinguish planned cases from implemented tests. This documentation review ran no application tests."}]},"verified_blob_shas":{"README.md":"5d984272f981d9ab255573376c151c9af77aeb98","docs/word_association_game_requirements.md":"963191c732723bb84ef7be0495431b8733fb9a0f","docs/ac_test_inventory.md":"07db39704a0317c060a189c45da4fbab037e2e14","docs/ac_gap_analysis.md":"95bd437d8581d99c88af46c5768f67febceffccb","docs/implementation_plan.md":"f0423b02e23f2e59f71f5985c5f462364e74dea5","docs/implementation_phase0_execution.md":"10b262f1c2ec06a50c9bbce988a4cd566fda6709","docs/phase0_interface_and_data_contracts.md":"798bbdb634485dc22c4547bd4776407990349d37","docs/moderation_plan.md":"c355fb3a242144eaa00f9fbd90e1c214e624d17d","docs/architecture_design.md":"c8e6f35a760e97be36e1cbc814ba01f83e6a3b25","docs/architecture_patterns.md":"570e61c383d3edac3c9e2d498693c558045f5396","docs/deployment_plan.md":"39cf2d4942ae199cb7a9e1dae1179a98cc8ac601","docs/architecture_domain_classes.svg":"64613c570bdcecb2048fa6095ca96b25864236d1","docs/architecture_ddd_components.svg":"037d985297614f42f4df0d6d0bcc6af069ba420a","docs/architecture_command_classes.svg":"d60d6f6725637b4eb33a5b02a7d742d05c8edd72","docs/word_association_vercel_deployment.svg":"16dc0de6efed06a070ca4b7612b89db910a1229b"},"findings":[],"verified":{"active_ac_count":45,"planned_active_ac_test_ids":65,"separate_tr30_and_tr31_cases":8,"phase0_status":"not passed","deployment_after_coding_phases_1_to_6":true,"deployment_is_ac_bound":false,"deployed_artifacts_count_as_ac_evidence":false,"every_active_ac_has_mock_validatable_case":true,"no_application_test_suite_was_run":true},"overall_assessment":"The exact GitHub commit is verified. Deployment is confined to post-coding Phase 7 and remains outside AC coverage. All active ACs have mock-validatable cases; TR-30 and TR-31 evidence is separate. Counts, Phase 0 restrictions, and resolved lobby behavior are consistent. Both scores exceed 98%. No application test suite was available to execute."}
{"record_type":"phase0_assessment","reviewed_commit":"8ded5ff293928744dd8735006f3121738528fe67","status":"not passed","accuracy_percent":99.5,"completeness_percent":99,"threshold_percent_each":98,"active_ac_count":45,"planned_active_ac_test_ids":65,"separate_tr_integration_case_ids":8,"deployment_after_coding_phases_1_to_6":true,"deployment_is_ac_bound":false,"deployed_artifacts_count_as_ac_evidence":false,"every_active_ac_has_mock_validatable_case":true,"next_action":"Continue Phase 0 technical-contract/test-spec review; do not author executable tests or project implementation until Phase 0 passes."}
{"record_type":"phase0_assessment","reviewed_commit":"2052db15b550a0891ea34d916e467266e8d219ee","status":"approved; plan completion through Phase 6 documented","accuracy_percent":99,"completeness_percent":99,"threshold_percent_each":98,"active_ac_count":45,"planned_active_ac_test_ids":67,"separate_tr_integration_case_ids":8,"deployment_after_coding_phases_1_to_6":true,"deployment_is_ac_bound":false,"deployed_artifacts_count_as_ac_evidence":false,"global_mock_validation_before_production_code":true,"test_suite_authored_or_run":false,"next_action":"After Phase 0 approval, bootstrap the test-only harness, author all active-AC tests, and validate against mocks before production implementation."}