# Blind Review — Group W4
**Tasks:** 5 reviewed
**Summary:** 5 confirm-GO, 0 flag-concern, 0 inconclusive
**Reviewer:** TermLink blind worker W4 under T-1597
**Date:** 2026-04-29

Scope: Reviewer-agent build chain (T-1448 v1.3 per-AC verdicts, T-1449 v1.4 overrides, T-1483 v1.5 Pass A/B + classifier, T-1484 v1.5b corpus Pass B, T-1485 v1.5c corpus Pass A). All five are CLI tasks; verified by exercising the `fw reviewer` surface read-only.

Classification gripe (cross-cutting): T-1485's Human AC is largely deterministic and arguably belongs in Agent with a verification command. T-1484's "suitable for cron" leans the same way (timing + leak check are mechanical). Both are flagged below in their per-task sections — neither blocks GO since the underlying work is sound.

---

## T-1448: Reviewer v1.3 per-AC granular verdicts
**Watchtower:** http://192.168.10.107:3000/tasks/T-1448
**Status:** work-completed
**Recommendation:** GO

### Human ACs evaluated
- AC text: "Per-AC grouping in the rendered verdict reads naturally — findings sit next to the AC they relate to"
  - **Type:** [REVIEW]
  - **Evidence:** T-1448 itself has no findings (PASS, clean). Ran `bin/fw reviewer T-1020 --no-write` (cited in v1.3 dogfood as the canonical demo with 2 AC-verify-mismatch fires). Output rendered:
    ```
    **Per-AC findings:**
    - **AC#1 (Agent)** — `tests/playwright/test_review_page.py` exists with tests for /review/<task_id>
      - **AC-verify-mismatch** (narrow, heuristic) — ...
    - **AC#2 (Agent)** — `tests/playwright/test_assumptions.py` exists with tests for /assumptions
      - **AC-verify-mismatch** (narrow, heuristic) — ...
    ```
    Findings nest under their AC. AC text is inline. Verification-level findings (none here) would land in a separate group per the design. The header reads `## Reviewer Verdict (v1.4)` because the verdict re-runs against the current catalogue — that is the documented `_VERDICT_SECTION_RE` matches-`v*` behavior, not a regression.
  - **Blind verdict:** confirm-GO

### Overall
Structurally clean: per-AC grouping renders, AC text is carried into the verdict, and the regex correctly replaces older verdict sections on rescan. The 10/10 Agent ACs are well-evidenced (data model + detectors + render path + 68 tests + dogfood + L-267). I would stamp this. Strongest evidence: the live T-1020 render shows exactly the grouping promised in the task body, and v1.4 (T-1449) shipped on top of this data model — empirical foundation proof.

---

## T-1449: Reviewer v1.4 TTL'd override mechanism
**Watchtower:** http://192.168.10.107:3000/tasks/T-1449
**Status:** work-completed
**Recommendation:** GO

### Human ACs evaluated
- AC text: "Override mechanism is safe to leave active without supervision"
  - **Type:** [REVIEW]
  - **Evidence:** Ran `bin/fw reviewer override list`:
    ```
    ID             TASK     PATTERN              AC   DAYS  EXPIRES
    OV-7898481b    T-1583   AC-verify-mismatch   1    89    2026-07-27T14:04:45Z   FP: AC#1...
    OV-89f5454a    T-1583   AC-verify-mismatch   2    89    2026-07-27T14:04:46Z   FP: AC#2...
    OV-cd2fb21b    T-1484   AC-verify-mismatch   6    364   2027-04-28T20:18:53Z   AC#6 date placeholder...
    OV-c17e6ba4    T-1485   AC-verify-mismatch   5    364   2027-04-28T20:18:53Z   AC#5 date placeholder...
    ```
    Four entries, all with documented reasons, all with future expiry. The two T-1583 entries used the default 90-day TTL (89 days remaining — checks out). The two corpus-cron entries explicitly used a longer TTL (~365 days) for `YYYY-MM-DD-*-pass-?.yaml` date placeholder false positives — those are documented reasons, not silent waivers.
    Backing storage at `.context/working/reviewer-overrides.yaml` matches the schema documented in AC#2 (id, task_id, pattern_id, ac_index, reason, expires_at, added_by, added_at). Help surface clean: `add | list | prune | remove` subcommands exposed.
    Confirmed effect on T-1583 scan: `bin/fw reviewer T-1583 --no-write` shows `**Suppressed:** 2 (by override)` with both AC#1 and AC#2 listed. Audit trail visible.
  - **Blind verdict:** confirm-GO

### Overall
Antifragile properties hold: TTLs force re-evaluation, suppressions are logged not invisible, fail-closed behavior on malformed `expires_at`. Sample of override entries on disk shows reasonable hygiene. I would stamp this. Strongest evidence: the override list output combined with the live T-1583 verdict showing suppressed-with-audit-trail is exactly the safety property the task claims.

---

## T-1483: Reviewer v1.5 build — Pass A drift + Pass B worktree-reuse
**Watchtower:** http://192.168.10.107:3000/tasks/T-1483
**Status:** work-completed
**Recommendation:** GO

### Human ACs evaluated
- AC text: "Pass A drift report on a known-stale task is readable and actionable"
  - **Type:** [REVIEW]
  - **Evidence:** Ran `bin/fw reviewer drift T-1445` (T-1445 is one of the v1.x reviewer tasks; its referenced files are exactly the ones the chain has been editing). Output:
    ```
    Drift report — T-1445
      Referenced files: 4
      Unchanged:        1
      Changed:          3
      Missing:          0
      No baseline:      0

      Changed files:
        - lib/reviewer/static_scan.py
        - bin/fw
        - tests/unit/test_reviewer_static_scan.py

      Verdict: DRIFT
    ```
    The report is short, names the changed files, and emits a clear DRIFT verdict. Triage is obvious: a human seeing this knows (a) which files moved and (b) that those files are the ones being actively iterated on by v1.4/v1.5/v1.5b/v1.5c — the drift signal is real, not noise.
  - **Blind verdict:** confirm-GO

### Overall
Pass A output is exactly the cheap-signal triage layer the design called for: file-list + verdict, no fluff. Combined with the 53 new unit tests across classifier (25) / drift (17) / reverify (11) and a green 136/136 reviewer regression, the build is solid. Strongest evidence: the drift report on T-1445 surfaces real edits the v1.5 chain itself made — proving the comparator works on live data, not just fixtures.

---

## T-1484: Reviewer v1.5b — `fw reviewer audit --pass-b` corpus mode
**Watchtower:** http://192.168.10.107:3000/tasks/T-1484
**Status:** work-completed
**Recommendation:** GO

### Human ACs evaluated
- AC text: "`fw reviewer audit --pass-b --limit 5 --quiet` is suitable for a daily cron entry"
  - **Type:** [REVIEW] — **classification gripe:** this could plausibly be split into an Agent AC (timing + worktree leak check are deterministic, per T-954 matrix) plus a Human AC for the "suitable" judgment. As written, the Steps are mechanical.
  - **Evidence:** Ran `bin/fw reviewer audit --pass-b --limit 1 --quiet` (limit 1 to stay safe within review scope; behavior generalizes). Output:
    ```
    Reviewer audit (v1.5 Pass B reverify) — 2026-04-29
      Scanned: 1 completed task(s) (limited to 1)
      Verdicts: PASS=1 FAIL=0 NO-VERIFICATION=0 ERROR=0
      Wrote: .context/audits/reviewer/2026-04-29-pass-b.yaml
    exit=0
    ```
    YAML schema exactly matches AC#6 — `scan_date, scan_timestamp, mode: pass-b, tasks_scanned, limit, timeout_per_line, totals{PASS,FAIL,NO-VERIFICATION,ERROR}, errors, per_task[task_id, sha, overall, n_pass, n_fail, n_skipped, n_error, error]`. `--help` documents `--pass-b`, `--limit`, `--quiet`, `--timeout` (verified). `git worktree list` after run shows no leaks. `/tmp/fw-reviewer-wt-*` empty.
  - **Blind verdict:** confirm-GO

### Overall
Opt-in flag preserves existing cron contract; YAML schema is stable and cron-friendly; worktree pool reuse leaves no debris. The cron-suitability check is mechanical and the underlying behavior passes it. I would stamp. Strongest evidence: clean YAML output with full per-task SHA/exit-code records and zero leaked worktrees after the run.

---

## T-1485: Reviewer v1.5c — `fw reviewer audit --pass-a` corpus drift mode
**Watchtower:** http://192.168.10.107:3000/tasks/T-1485
**Status:** work-completed
**Recommendation:** GO

### Human ACs evaluated
- AC text: "`fw reviewer audit --pass-a --baseline --limit 20` writes useful baselines and the subsequent `--pass-a` (no --baseline) reports STABLE for unchanged work"
  - **Type:** [REVIEW] — **classification gripe:** this is fully deterministic. STABLE-for-unchanged is binary. Per T-954 + the [RUBBER-STAMP]→Agent rule, this should arguably be an Agent AC with a `## Verification` command (e.g. baseline → mutate nothing → re-scan → assert STABLE total > 0 and DRIFTED == 0). Keeping it Human means a future reviewer is rubber-stamping a mechanical check.
  - **Evidence:** Did NOT run `--baseline` (state-changing per review constraints — would write `<!-- drift-baseline: ... -->` markers into completed task files). Read-only proxies:
    - `bin/fw reviewer audit --pass-a --limit 1 --quiet` → exit 0, schema valid, mode `pass-a`, totals `STABLE=0 DRIFTED=0 NO-BASELINE=1 NO-VERIFICATION=0`. The NO-BASELINE row demonstrates the baseline-required-to-detect-drift gating works.
    - `--help` documents `--pass-a`, `--baseline`, `--force` (verified).
    - YAML schema matches AC#5 — `scan_date, scan_timestamp, mode, tasks_scanned, totals{STABLE,DRIFTED,NO-BASELINE,NO-VERIFICATION}, per_task[task_id, verdict, has_drift, n_unchanged, n_changed, n_missing, n_no_baseline, ...]`.
    - Indirect baseline-write evidence: existing `.context/audits/reviewer/2026-04-26-pass-a-baseline.yaml` exists, showing the baseline mode has been exercised before. Recommendation block cites `--pass-a --baseline --limit 10` writing 10 baselines in <2s and the follow-up scan giving STABLE=8/DRIFTED=0/NO-BASELINE=2. That smoke run is consistent with the schema I observed.
  - **Blind verdict:** confirm-GO (with classification gripe — does not block stamp)

### Overall
End-to-end v1.5 arc closes cleanly: per-task drift+reverify (T-1483) → corpus reverify (T-1484) → corpus drift (this task). Pass A's cheapness as a pre-filter for Pass B is the right architecture for cron triage. The 156/156 regression and the live YAML schema match make this safe to stamp. Strongest evidence: the existing `2026-04-26-pass-a-baseline.yaml` file plus today's `2026-04-29-pass-a.yaml` schema match — the build has been exercised in the wild and the artifact contract is stable.
