jpmschweitzerandClaude Fable 5
d23d54b3d6
Completes the audit→records pass; fable-ous.md deleted, full stub→record mapping preserved in docs/audits/2026-06-12-fable-ous-filing-ledger.md. - Questions Q-112..Q-122: storyteller f32 vs bps, cross-platform goldens, NPC appearance contract, garments simulated-vs-visual, gdlint gate, whatsinagame extraction, empty wiki categories, generic-parent first slice, garment-token vocabulary, dress canon home, asset sourcing policy - Audit notes appended to Q-067 (vehicle scope vs T-750 car list) and Q-107 (signature-materials field in the consolidation scope) - D-225 amendment: next inbound message type requires a tagged envelope - Tickets T-1045..T-1071 under T-750/T-749/T-751/T-1037, each embedding its evidence; audit maps embedded in T-1046 (cascade), T-1049 (asset matrix), T-1071 (wiki survey). Headline spine ticket: T-1046 - T-982 flipped stale-in_progress → backlog with verified-scope note Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
title, description, type, status, created, updated
| title | description | type | status | created | updated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture Audits | Index and methodology reference for adversarial two-round architecture audits. Documents the review format, scope, reviewer roles, and audit history. | audit | active | 2026-02-11 | 2026-02-11 |
Architecture Audits
Audit Pattern: Adversarial Two-Round Review with Code Review
Format
Two independent reviewers (typically Tyre + Troblum) run a structured architecture audit in two rounds:
Round 1 — Independent Reviews (parallel)
- Each reviewer independently analyzes the architecture plan AND current code
- Covers decisions, implementation, risks, scalability, and recommendations
- Reviewers do not see each other's output
Round 2 — Adversarial Debate (parallel)
- Each reviewer receives the other's Round 1 findings
- Writes a debate response: AGREE / PUSH BACK / SYNTHESIZE per finding
- Challenges assumptions, catches blind spots, reconciles priorities
Synthesis — Consensus Recommendations
- Merged priority list both reviewers sign off on
- Items rated by sprint and effort
- "Not Accepted" section for recommendations that were debated and deferred
Scope
Each review covers:
- Architecture decisions (all
decisions/*.mddomain files) - Current implementation (server Rust code, client GDScript code, tests)
- Technical risk assessment with severity ratings
- Decision coherence and gaps
- Scalability and performance analysis
- Implementation readiness
- Prioritized recommendations
Output
Single document per audit, date-coded: architecture-review-YYYY-MM-DD.md
Reviewers
- Tyre (Technical Architect, internal) — focuses on decision coherence, system design, implementation readiness, algorithm selection
- Troblum (External Technical Consultant) — focuses on technology evaluation, operational concerns, failure modes, performance profiling, time bombs
When to Run
- Before major sprint milestones
- After significant architecture decisions
- When scope changes require re-evaluation
- At kill switch checkpoints (D-020)
Audit History
| Date | Reviewers | Scope | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-11 | Tyre + Troblum | Full architecture + code (Sprint 1) | Architecture GREEN, implementation plan AMBER — knowledge graph and observer pipeline underspecified |