Skip to content

22 — Final Review Checklist and Certification

Evaluation of this PRD against master prompt Part 13, section by section. Each item states the verification performed and where the evidence lives. Findings raised during this review and their resolutions are recorded in REVIEW_REPORT.md.

Section 1 — Product validation

  • ✅ PRD implements the Charter without redefinition: the charter-bound map (01 §3) covers every §13 bound item; no chapter introduces a kernel family, persona, or surface beyond Charter §6/§7.
  • ✅ Mission drift: none — the two-product identity (library + ledger) is structural (MOD-LEDGER co-equal; 11).
  • ✅ Permanent non-goals enforced: nothing in 21 originates from Charter §8.2's never-table; no scheduler, allocator, expression layer, or format code exists in the module inventory (02 §5).
  • ✅ Anti-personas excluded: no SQL/DataFrame surface, no Rust/Python first-party bindings (21 F-07), no general SIMD abstraction API (ADR-003 alternative 3 explicitly rejected as charter-prohibited).

Section 2 — Architectural completeness

  • ✅ Every module carries the full 17-field template: non-kernel modules in 05 (with the shared-defaults convention stated in 05 §1); kernel families in 08 against the common contract (08 §2); MOD-DISPATCH expanded in 07; MOD-CI in 13. The inheritance convention is itself documented and normative.

Section 3 — Repository completeness

  • ✅ Hierarchy fully defined with per-directory ownership/dependency/exclusion table (02 §3–§4); production file inventory closed at 73 files (02 §8); DAG acyclic (02 §6); implementation order deterministic (02 §9); visibility classes enumerated (02 §7).

Section 4 — API completeness

  • ✅ All surfaces specified with the required fields: the common API contract (04 §2) plus per-API deltas covers purpose/signature/ownership/lifetime/pre/postconditions/side effects/complexity/allocation/exceptions/thread safety/invalid input; examples per family; tests and benchmarks referenced per API (REQ-API-010); capacity table centralized (06 §6).

Section 5 — Performance completeness

  • ✅ Performance contracts per module and family (08 §2/§4, 07 §8); every benchmark carries a hypothesis (REQ-BENCH-003); methodology reproducible (QLM-1, 11); environment capture (REQ-LEDGER-003/013); PMU methodology (ADR-022); flamegraph workflow (REQ-BENCH-014); ledger structure (Surface D); regression policy (11 §9); no performance claim without methodology (REQ-LEDGER-015 provenance check).

Section 6 — Testing completeness

  • ✅ Every REQ maps to validation (01 §6, REQ-META-002); every invariant has a dedicated test (REQ-TEST-005); every public API tested (REQ-API-010); fuzz targets defined (REQ-TEST-007); regression strategy (REQ-TEST-011); sanitizer strategy (REQ-TEST-009); release validation (19 §5).

Section 7 — Documentation completeness

  • ✅ Per-module architecture pages (REQ-DOC-003), per-family API pages with normative template (14 §5), benchmark docs (REQ-BENCH-014, 11), ADRs materialized + indexed (REQ-DOC-004, 01 §5), contribution docs (REQ-DOC-009), release docs (REQ-DOC-010), doc-sync enforcement (REQ-DOC-012).

Section 8 — ADR validation

  • ✅ 26 ADRs indexed in 01 §5; all carry alternatives/tradeoffs/decision/consequences/reconsideration/related-REQs, with context/problem/constraints present explicitly (long-form ADRs) or verified present in compressed prose and normalized where thin during review (ADR-016, ADR-024 — REVIEW_REPORT F-12). Three master-prompt-mandated ADR areas are covered by the documented waiver in 01 §5 (memory ownership, allocator strategy, threading model — charter-fixed with no PRD-level alternatives; REVIEW_REPORT F-13). Every §4-of-[01] handoff item resolves to at least one ADR.

Section 9 — Traceability validation

  • ✅ Chain Research → OA → Charter → REQ → ADR → module → API → tests → benchmarks → docs → milestone → release realized: 01 §3 (charter), 01 §7 (research anchors), 01 §6 (master matrix, 235 IDs each exactly once), release mapping fixed (19 §4). Matrix-vs-chapter-18 reconciliation performed and independently re-verified during review (REVIEW_REPORT.md, findings P-4 and F-15).

Section 10 — Milestone validation

  • ✅ Every requirement belongs to exactly one milestone (first-enforced convention, 18 §1; audited against 01 §6); dependencies form a strict chain; acceptance criteria objective; release gates specified with a uniform base + per-milestone additions; repository releasable after every milestone (REQ-MS-001, ADR-024 consequence).

Section 11 — Autonomous implementation readiness

  • ✅ The twelve never-determine items (repository organization … release sequencing) are each pre-decided: 02/03 (organization, build), 04/06 (APIs, ownership), 05/07/08 (lifecycle, algorithms per ISA), 07 §6 (threading/synchronization — the only synchronization in the product), 10/11 (benchmark methodology), 12 (testing), 14 (documentation structure), 18/19 (sequencing). Residual local freedom is bounded by 17 §3. Ambiguity protocol: stop-and-report (REQ-META-004).

Section 12 — Internal consistency

  • ✅ Verified during the review pass (grep-audited cross-references, ID uniqueness, kernel-catalog consistency across 00/04/08, file-count reconciliation, milestone/matrix reconciliation). Defects found were fixed and are logged in REVIEW_REPORT.md; none remain open.

Section 13 — Engineering quality principles

  • ✅ Correctness before optimization: scalar-first milestones (M3 before M4); dual oracle before any SIMD. Measurement before optimization: harness milestone (M2) precedes kernels; evidence-gated variants (REQ-KERNEL-007). Explicitness: contracts chapters (04/06/16). Determinism: REQ-API-006, ADR-013/016. Simplicity: T8-driven selections (ADR-008/009/019/024). Reproducibility: the ledger is the product's thesis.

Section 14 — Scope discipline

  • ✅ No SQL parsing, storage, networking, distribution, authentication, or speculative features anywhere; the demo layer is bounded by the Engine Test (05 §11); 21 items are deferrals with owners and activation paths, not soft scope.

Section 15 — Final approval criteria

All twelve criteria hold: unique REQ IDs (235, 01 §6); subsystems fully specified; APIs documented; ADRs complete (26); traceability bidirectional; benchmarks specified; tests specified; documentation artifacts specified; milestone acceptance objective; release completion objective; assumptions documented (risk register 20 + ADR consequence sections); no known architecturally significant ambiguity remains.

Certification

To the best of the authoring architect's knowledge, as of PRD revision 1.0 (July 2026):

  1. The repository architecture is complete: every directory, module, production file, and interface is predetermined.
  2. The engineering design is internally consistent: the review of REVIEW_REPORT.md found and resolved all identified defects; no open contradictions remain.
  3. Implementation sequencing is fully specified: M0–M10 with deterministic order, objective gates, and complete requirement allocation.
  4. Autonomous implementation may proceed, subject to the standing rule: any ambiguity discovered in-flight triggers stop-and-report (REQ-META-004), and any architecturally significant change requires amendment of the governing documents (Charter or this PRD) — never implementation-time invention.

Status: APPROVED FOR IMPLEMENTATION (implementation itself is explicitly out of scope for the PRD-generation phase and shall not begin until separately authorized).