# Review R014 — Code review for Step 3

Verdict: **REVISE**

Reviewed changes against baseline `00a3bf1`:

- `docs/kr5-benchmark.md`
- `scripts/benchmark/results/kr5-results.json`
- `taskplane-tasks/TP-100-analyzer-benchmark-harness/.reviews/R013-plan-step3.md`
- `taskplane-tasks/TP-100-analyzer-benchmark-harness/STATUS.md`

Verification run:

```bash
python3 scripts/benchmark/kr5_benchmark.py \
  --mode fixtures \
  --prompt-set scripts/benchmark/prompts/kr5_shared_prompts.json \
  --fixture-dir scripts/benchmark/testdata/fixtures \
  --output /tmp/<tmpfile> \
  --generated-at 2026-05-20T00:00:00Z
```

The rerun matched the committed `scripts/benchmark/results/kr5-results.json` exactly.

## Findings

### 1. TP-098 net-savings table does not use an incremental catalog-token cost

- **File:** `docs/kr5-benchmark.md:120-126`
- **Severity:** Medium

The methodology says the per-candidate verdict subtracts the candidate tool's **incremental** catalog-description tokens using the same canonical catalog payload/tokenizer conventions as the harness. The table appears to subtract the token count of a standalone one-tool catalog row instead. Using the harness helpers (`catalog_payload`, `canonical_json`, `TokenCounter`) and measuring the actual increment from the disabled catalog plus that one candidate gives:

| Candidate | Current catalog tokens | Incremental catalog tokens | Current net | Correct net |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| `analyze_trend` | 308 | 305 | 146 | 149 |
| `compute_zone_time` | 176 | 173 | 27 | 30 |
| `compute_baseline` | 237 | 234 | 216 | 219 |

The gate outcome does not change, but Step 3 explicitly records these numbers as TP-098 evidence, so the published calculation should match the stated incremental method.

### 2. STATUS.md records R013 with the wrong verdict in the execution/history log

- **File:** `taskplane-tasks/TP-100-analyzer-benchmark-harness/STATUS.md:152-156`
- **Severity:** Low

The review table correctly records `R013 | plan | 3 | ACCEPT`, and `.reviews/R013-plan-step3.md` is an ACCEPT review, but the newly-added log row says:

```text
| 2026-05-20 22:51 | Review R013 | plan Step 3: REVISE |
```

This leaves the task bookkeeping internally inconsistent and also misses the R013 implementation note to fix the prior review-history mismatch while updating `STATUS.md`. Please change the R013 log entry to `ACCEPT` (and keep the history section consistent with the review table).
