# Verification Report

**Change**: cerebro-docs
**Version**: N/A (planning-only)
**Type**: Planning proposal — no code, specs, design, tasks, or tests in scope

---

## Completeness

| Metric                           | Value                             |
|----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| Decisions documented             | 5                                 |
| Decisions with explicit status   | 5/5                               |
| Risks identified                 | 4                                 |
| Risks with mitigations           | 4/4                               |
| Follow-up issues created         | 8 (DALLAY-223 through DALLAY-230) |
| Detailed issue specs (issues.md) | 8/8 with acceptance criteria      |
| Execution order defined          | Yes                               |

All planning deliverables are present. Proposal is marked APPROVED. Additionally, issues.md provides
detailed scope, source files, and acceptance criteria for every issue — exceeding the minimum for a
planning change.

---

## Decision Quality

| Decision                         | Status Keywords            | Clear Rationale                             | Traceable to Issue                                      |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
| D1: Top-Level Section            | YES                        | Yes — standalone service with own lifecycle | DALLAY-223                                              |
| D2: Information Architecture     | Explicit tree              | Yes — follows user journey                  | All issues                                              |
| D3: Minimum Launch Content       | MUST, SHOULD, NICE-TO-HAVE | Yes — 6-page minimum defined                | DALLAY-223–228 (MUST), 229 (SHOULD), 230 (NICE-TO-HAVE) |
| D4: Existing Content Disposition | MOVE, KEEP per item        | Yes — clear action per artifact             | DALLAY-228                                              |
| D5: Bilingual Parity             | REQUIRED                   | Yes — EN/ES same-PR delivery                | All issues require EN/ES                                |

---

## Issue Traceability

| Linear ID  | Title                          | Maps to Decision(s) | Priority Consistent  |
|------------|--------------------------------|---------------------|----------------------|
| DALLAY-223 | Scaffold + sidebar config      | D1, D2              | High (MUST) ✅        |
| DALLAY-224 | Configuration page EN/ES       | D2, D3, D5          | High (MUST) ✅        |
| DALLAY-225 | Running page EN/ES             | D2, D3, D5          | High (MUST) ✅        |
| DALLAY-226 | CLI Reference page EN/ES       | D2, D3, D5          | High (MUST) ✅        |
| DALLAY-227 | MCP Tools Reference page EN/ES | D2, D3, D5          | High (MUST) ✅        |
| DALLAY-228 | Move migration guide           | D4                  | High (MUST) ✅        |
| DALLAY-229 | Integration page EN/ES         | D2, D3, D5          | Medium (SHOULD) ✅    |
| DALLAY-230 | Operations page EN/ES          | D2, D3, D5          | Low (NICE-TO-HAVE) ✅ |

Execution order `223 → 228 → (224, 225, 226, 227 parallel) → 229 → 230` is logically sound: scaffold
first, then migrate existing content, then new MUST pages in parallel, then lower-priority pages.

---

## Internal Consistency Check

| Check                                                                                                               | Result                                                     |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| D3 minimum launch (6 pages) vs MUST issues count (6: scaffold+overview, config, running, cli, mcp-tools, migration) | ✅ Consistent                                               |
| D5 bilingual (12 files = 6 pages x 2 langs) vs issues.md acceptance criteria (all require EN/ES)                    | ✅ Consistent                                               |
| D2 IA tree (8 pages) vs sidebar config (8 entries) vs file structure (8 files per lang)                             | ✅ Consistent                                               |
| D4 (MOVE migration, KEEP mcp-schema JSON) vs Issue 6 scope (move pages, keep JSON in place)                         | ✅ Consistent                                               |
| D4 (KEEP guides/architecture.md, add cross-link) vs no dedicated issue for cross-linking                            | ⚠️ Minor gap — cross-linking is implicit in implementation |
| Sidebar config includes Operations entry vs D3 marks Operations as NICE-TO-HAVE                                     | ⚠️ See WARNING 1 below                                     |

---

## Cross-Change Consistency (cerebro-distribution)

| Check                                                                                                  | Result                 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| Distribution D2 says do NOT ship `cerebro-serve` vs Docs Issue 3 scope says "Document `cerebro-serve`" | ⚠️ See WARNING 2 below |

---

## Build & Tests Execution

**N/A** — Planning-only change. No code to build or test.

---

## Spec Compliance Matrix

**N/A** — No specs defined for this planning change. The proposal IS the deliverable.

---

## Issues Found

**CRITICAL** (must fix before archive):
None

**WARNING** (should fix):

1. **Sidebar includes NICE-TO-HAVE page**: The sidebar configuration in the proposal includes an "
   Operations" entry, but the Operations page (DALLAY-230) is NICE-TO-HAVE priority. If MUST pages
   ship without Operations, the sidebar link will 404. **Recommendation**: Issue 1 (scaffold) should
   either (a) create stub pages for all sidebar entries, or (b) the sidebar config should be updated
   incrementally as pages are added.
2. **`cerebro-serve` documentation scope vs distribution decision**: The cerebro-distribution
   proposal decides NOT to ship `cerebro-serve` as a public binary. However, Issue 3 (Running page,
   DALLAY-225) scopes "Document `cerebro-serve` (lightweight server-only entry point)". This isn't a
   contradiction — documenting a dev-only binary is valid — but the Running page should clearly
   state that `cerebro-serve` is for development only and is not distributed. **Recommendation**:
   Add a note to DALLAY-225 acceptance criteria clarifying this distinction.

**SUGGESTION** (nice to have):

1. Consider adding a "Prerequisites" or "Installation" subsection scope to Issue 1 (scaffold) since
   D3 marks Installation as SHOULD and says it can live in Overview — but Issue 1's acceptance
   criteria don't explicitly mention installation content.
2. The issues.md is thorough with source files listed per issue — this is excellent for
   implementation handoff.

---

## Verdict

**PASS WITH WARNINGS**

All 5 decisions have explicit status keywords, clear rationale, and traceable follow-up issues. The
issues.md provides exceptional detail with acceptance criteria and source file references. Two
warnings flagged: (1) sidebar may include links to pages that don't exist at launch, and (2)
`cerebro-serve` documentation should clarify it's dev-only per distribution decisions. Neither is
blocking — both are implementer guidance. Ready for archive with warnings noted.
