@pmelab/gtd 51.0.1 → 52.0.0

package/src/workflows/feature/review-answers.feature

@@ -54,10 +54,6 @@ Feature: every note in the review is answered with one tick
     And step "implement.applying" runs its script
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
     And step "build.quality.correctness.reviewing" writes ".gtd/QUALITY.md" with:
       """
       # Quality
@@ -125,7 +121,9 @@ Feature: every note in the review is answered with one tick
     Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
+      ## Findings
+
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       _critical: judge unsure_
 
@@ -233,3 +231,90 @@ Feature: every note in the review is answered with one tick
     And the text "- [ ] fix as suggested" in ".gtd/REVIEW.md" is replaced with ""
     And the text "Tick exactly one:" in ".gtd/REVIEW.md" is replaced with ""
     Then landing is refused with "its answer boxes were deleted"
+
+  Scenario: a review still in the flat layout, every chunk a `## `, is answered by its ticks
+    Given judge step "build.review.standards.judge" answers:
+      """
+      [{"id":"standard-1","answer":"no","p":0.9}]
+      """
+    When the process is driven
+    Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
+    Given a file ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
+      """
+      # Review: abc1234
+
+      <!-- base: 0000000 -->
+
+      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
+
+      _critical: judge unsure_
+
+      Should subtract round? The criterion does not say.
+
+      In the code:
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — returns the raw difference
+
+      Tick exactly one:
+
+      - [ ] fix as suggested
+      - [x] won't fix
+      - [ ] _your answer_
+
+      ## Subtract
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
+      """
+    When gtd lands
+    And the process is driven
+    Then the process rests at "idle"
+    And the commit "gtd(human): build.review.await-review → build.review.standards.judge" has a body containing "Gtd-Mark: wontfix=AC-1 ignores floating point"
+    And no commit body contains "build.review.triage"
+
+  Scenario: boxes ticked in the walkthrough answer nothing
+    Given judge step "build.review.standards.judge" answers:
+      """
+      [{"id":"standard-1","answer":"no","p":0.9}]
+      """
+    When the process is driven
+    Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
+    Given a file ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
+      """
+      # Review: abc1234
+
+      <!-- base: 0000000 -->
+
+      ## Findings
+
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
+
+      _critical: judge unsure_
+
+      Should subtract round? The criterion does not say.
+
+      In the code:
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — returns the raw difference
+
+      Tick exactly one:
+
+      - [ ] fix as suggested
+      - [x] won't fix
+      - [ ] _your answer_
+
+      ## Walkthrough
+
+      ### Subtract
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
+
+      Tick exactly one:
+
+      - [x] fix as suggested
+      - [ ] won't fix
+      - [ ] _your answer_
+      """
+    When gtd lands
+    And the process is driven
+    Then the process rests at "idle"
+    And no commit body contains "build.review.fix.nits.fixing"

package/src/workflows/feature/review-gate.feature

@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@ Feature: a feature process ends at the human review
   After the last slice's quality lap the process rests at the review gate,
   `.gtd/REVIEW.md`. A sign-off ends the process. A note asking for a change in
   behaviour starts a feedback lap — design, then implement with no new naive
-  pass or seam judge, the coverage judge over every criterion, the quality lap
-  — and the review again. Its design keeps a built criterion's ID and numbers
+  pass or seam judge, the hands-on test, the quality lap — and the review
+  again. Its design keeps a built criterion's ID and numbers
   new behaviour above every ID handed out.
 
   Background:
@@ -54,10 +54,6 @@ Feature: a feature process ends at the human review
     And step "implement.applying" runs its script
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
     And step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
       """
       # Review: abc1234
@@ -83,7 +79,7 @@ Feature: a feature process ends at the human review
     And the resting step's content contains the hash of the commit "feat: add calculator"
     And the commit subjects end with:
       """
-      gtd(judge): implement.coverage → implement.closing
+      gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.closing
       gtd(check): implement.closing → build.review.reviewing
       gtd(agent): build.review.reviewing → build.review.ranking
       gtd(judge): build.review.ranking → build.review.carrying
@@ -99,9 +95,9 @@ Feature: a feature process ends at the human review
 
       <!-- base: 0000000 -->
 
-      ## calc
+      ## Walkthrough
 
-      _critical: judge unsure_
+      ### calc
 
       - [x] ./src/calc.ts#2-2
         new subtract function
@@ -156,9 +152,9 @@ Feature: a feature process ends at the human review
 
         <!-- base: 0000000 -->
 
-        ## calc
+        ## Walkthrough
 
-        _critical: judge unsure_
+        ### calc
 
         - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2
           new subtract function[^why]
@@ -176,15 +172,15 @@ Feature: a feature process ends at the human review
 
         <!-- base: 0000000 -->
 
-        ## calc
+        ## Walkthrough
 
-        _critical: judge unsure_
+        ### calc
 
         - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2
           new subtract function
         """
 
-    Scenario: the lap keeps AC-1, adds AC-2, and covers both before the next review
+    Scenario: the lap keeps AC-1, adds AC-2, and builds both before the next review
       Given step "design.triage" from now on changes nothing
       And step "design.triage" writes ".gtd/REQUIREMENTS.md" with:
         """
@@ -211,15 +207,10 @@ Feature: a feature process ends at the human review
         """
         it("[AC-2] multiplies", () => {})
         """
-      And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-        """
-        [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9},{"id":"AC-2","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-        """
       When gtd lands
       And the process is driven
       Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
       And ".gtd/REQUIREMENTS.md" does not exist
-      And the commit "gtd(judge): implement.coverage → implement.closing" has a body containing "Gtd-Mark: covers=AC-1"
       And the commit subjects end with:
         """
         gtd(human): build.review.await-review → build.review.closing
@@ -228,8 +219,7 @@ Feature: a feature process ends at the human review
         gtd(agent): design.triage → design.gate.answer
         gtd(human): design.gate.answer → implement.building
         gtd(agent): implement.building → implement.health.check
-        gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.coverage
-        gtd(judge): implement.coverage → implement.closing
+        gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.closing
         gtd(check): implement.closing → build.review.reviewing
         gtd(agent): build.review.reviewing → build.review.ranking
         gtd(judge): build.review.ranking → build.review.carrying
@@ -255,35 +245,3 @@ Feature: a feature process ends at the human review
         """
       When gtd lands
       Then driving the process is refused with "criteria-ids"
-
-    Scenario: the lap holds a new criterion to coverage
-      Given step "design.triage" from now on changes nothing
-      And step "design.triage" writes ".gtd/REQUIREMENTS.md" with:
-        """
-        # Requirements
-
-        ## Concerns
-
-        ### Multiply
-
-        - `multiply(a, b)` returns `a * b`.
-
-        ## Acceptance Criteria
-
-        - AC-1: subtract(a, b) returns a - b.
-        - AC-2: multiply(a, b) returns a * b.
-        """
-      And step "implement.building" writes "src/calc.ts" with:
-        """
-        export const add = (a: number, b: number) => a + b
-        export const subtract = (a: number, b: number) => a - b
-        export const multiply = (a: number, b: number) => a * b
-        """
-      And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-        """
-        [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9},{"id":"AC-2","answer":"no","p":0.9}]
-        """
-      When gtd lands
-      And the process is driven
-      Then the process rests at "implement.covering"
-      And the resting step's content contains "AC-2"

package/src/workflows/feature/reviewer-walkthrough.feature

@@ -49,10 +49,6 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
     And step "implement.applying" runs its script
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
     And step "build.quality.correctness.reviewing" writes ".gtd/QUALITY.md" with:
       """
       # Quality
@@ -96,15 +92,9 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
     Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## Subtract
-
-      _critical: judge unsure_
-
-      The new export.
+      ## Findings
 
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
-
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       _critical: judge unsure_
 
@@ -119,6 +109,14 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
       - [ ] fix as suggested
       - [ ] won't fix
       - [ ] _your answer_
+
+      ## Walkthrough
+
+      ### Subtract
+
+      The new export.
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
       """
     And no commit body contains "build.review.composing"
     And the commit subjects end with:
@@ -145,6 +143,25 @@ Feature: a reviewer walks the human through the feature's code
       """
     Then driving the process is refused with "Subtract — points at no code"
 
+  Scenario: a review the reviewer sorts into sections itself is refused
+    Given step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
+      """
+      # Review: abc1234
+
+      <!-- base: 0000000 -->
+
+      ## Walkthrough
+
+      ### Subtract
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
+
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — returns the raw difference
+      """
+    Then driving the process is refused with "Walkthrough — gtd sorts the chunks into sections; write `## ` chunks only"
+
   Scenario: a finding the reviewer left out is refused
     Given step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
       """

package/src/workflows/feature/seam-rejection.feature

@@ -53,10 +53,6 @@ Feature: rejected naive passes walk one fixed path through the steer gate to the
       """
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
     When the process is driven
     Then the process rests at "seam.judge"
 
@@ -123,8 +119,7 @@ Feature: rejected naive passes walk one fixed path through the steer gate to the
       gtd(check): seam.check → seam.judge
       gtd(judge): seam.judge → implement.applying
       gtd(check): implement.applying → implement.health.check
-      gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.coverage
-      gtd(judge): implement.coverage → implement.closing
+      gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.closing
       gtd(check): implement.closing → build.review.reviewing
       """
     And the commit "gtd(human): idle → unwind" has a body containing "Gtd-Var: flag_risk_tier=0"

package/src/workflows/feature/seam.feature

@@ -148,10 +148,6 @@ Feature: the naive pass and seam judge decide how a feature is built
     And step "implement.applying" runs its script
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
     When the process is driven
     Then the process rests at "build.review.reviewing"
     And "src/calc.ts" contains "subtract"
@@ -159,8 +155,7 @@ Feature: the naive pass and seam judge decide how a feature is built
       """
       gtd(judge): seam.judge → implement.applying
       gtd(check): implement.applying → implement.health.check
-      gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.coverage
-      gtd(judge): implement.coverage → implement.closing
+      gtd(check): implement.health.check → implement.closing
       gtd(check): implement.closing → build.review.reviewing
       """
     And ".gtd/REQUIREMENTS.md" does not exist

package/src/workflows/feature/seam.test.ts

@@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ describe("implement", () => {
     lastOptions = undefined
     installContext(
       fixtureContext(
-        // The hands-on test after coverage has its own scenarios.
+        // The hands-on test has its own scenarios.
         { vars: { prototypeRounds: "0" } },
         {
           step: (request: StepRequest) => {

package/src/workflows/feature/seam.ts

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ import {
 } from "../shared/steps.js"
 import * as t from "../shared/text.js"
 import { defaults } from "../shared/vars.js"
-import { green, requireCoverage } from "./coverage.js"
+import { green } from "./green.js"
 import { prototypeTest } from "./prototype.js"
 import {
   criterionIds,
@@ -289,7 +289,7 @@ export interface ImplementOptions {
   readonly rebuild?: t.Rebuild | undefined
   /** The criteria this slice builds, when the change has more than one slice. */
   readonly slice?: CriteriaSlice | undefined
-  /** Where the slice began: the coverage judge reads only the tests changed since. */
+  /** @deprecated Ignored since the coverage judge is gone. */
   readonly base?: string | undefined
   /** Not the last slice: `.gtd/REQUIREMENTS.md` and `.gtd/SLICES.md` stay for the next one. */
   readonly more?: boolean | (() => boolean) | undefined
@@ -385,7 +385,6 @@ export const implementing = (options: ImplementOptions): Promise<readonly string
     const keepsTests =
       built && acceptance !== undefined ? () => requireAcceptanceKept(acceptance) : undefined
     await green(keepsTests)
-    await requireCoverage(options.base, options.slice)
     await prototypeTest(options.slice, keepsTests)
     const ids = criterionIds(read(REQUIREMENTS) ?? "")
     await closing(moreToBuild(options.more))

package/src/workflows/feature/severity-budget.feature

@@ -46,10 +46,6 @@ Feature: the review's ranking is batched to the judge's budget
     And step "implement.applying" runs its script
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
     And step "build.quality.correctness.reviewing" writes ".gtd/QUALITY.md" with:
       """
       # Quality
@@ -93,15 +89,19 @@ Feature: the review's ranking is batched to the judge's budget
     Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
+      ## Findings
+
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       _critical: judge unsure_
       """
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## Subtract
+      ## Walkthrough
+
+      ### Subtract
 
-      _could_
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
       """
     And the commit subjects end with:
       """

package/src/workflows/feature/severity-sorted-review.feature

@@ -1,12 +1,13 @@
 @inmem
-Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
+Feature: the final review lists the findings that matter most first
 
-  Before the review rests, the judge rates every chunk the reviewer wrote — a
-  walkthrough chunk or a carried quality finding — on the same four questions
-  as a human's note (`build.review.ranking`): critical (security, or a one-way
-  door), should (a contract, or a new concept), could. The review lists them
-  in that order, security before one-way doors, each led by its tier and
-  reason. A chunk the judge cannot rate is critical, so it is shown first.
+  Before the review rests, the judge rates every chunk the reviewer wrote on
+  the same four questions as a human's note (`build.review.ranking`): critical
+  (security, or a one-way door), should (a contract, or a new concept), could.
+  The quality findings go under `## Findings` in that order, security before
+  one-way doors, each led by its tier and reason; a finding the judge cannot
+  rate is critical. The walkthrough goes under `## Walkthrough` in the
+  reviewer's order, with no tier.
 
   Background:
     Given the shipped workflows, as gtd install scaffolds them
@@ -48,10 +49,6 @@ Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
     And step "implement.applying" runs its script
     And step "implement.health.check" changes nothing
     And step "implement.closing" runs its script
-    And judge step "implement.coverage" answers:
-      """
-      [{"id":"AC-1","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
-      """
     And step "build.quality.correctness.reviewing" writes ".gtd/QUALITY.md" with:
       """
       # Quality
@@ -59,16 +56,20 @@ Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
       ## AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       Should subtract round? The criterion does not say.
+
+      ## Token in logs
+
+      The caller's token reaches the log.
       """
     And judge step "build.quality.triage" answers:
       """
-      [{"id":"Q1","answer":"design","p":0.9}]
+      [{"id":"Q1","answer":"design","p":0.9},{"id":"Q2","answer":"design","p":0.9}]
       """
     And step "build.quality.sorting" runs its script
     And step "build.quality.closing" runs its script
     And step "build.review.carrying" runs its script
 
-  Scenario: security and one-way doors come first, a carried finding sorted among the rest
+  Scenario: findings are sorted by tier, the walkthrough kept in the reviewer's order
     Given step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
       """
       # Review: abc1234
@@ -81,39 +82,41 @@ Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
 
       - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
 
-      ## Session token
-
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — reads the caller's token
-
       ## AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — returns the raw difference
 
-      ## Saved format
+      ## Session token
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — reads the caller's token
+
+      ## Token in logs
 
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-2 — what callers persist
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — where it is logged
       """
     And judge step "build.review.ranking" answers:
       """
-      [{"id":"C1.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.security","answer":"yes","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.blastRadius","answer":"module","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.blastRadius","answer":"contract","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.reversibility","answer":"one-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.blastRadius","answer":"contract","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9}]
+      [{"id":"C1.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.blastRadius","answer":"contract","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.security","answer":"yes","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.blastRadius","answer":"module","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.reversibility","answer":"one-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.blastRadius","answer":"contract","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9}]
       """
     When the process is driven
     Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## Session token
-
-      _critical: security_
+      <!-- base: 0000000 -->
 
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — reads the caller's token
+      ## Findings
 
-      ## Saved format
+      ### Token in logs
 
       _critical: one-way door_
 
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-2 — what callers persist
+      The caller's token reaches the log.
+      """
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
+      """
+      - [ ] _your answer_
 
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       _should: contract_
 
@@ -123,12 +126,19 @@ Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
       """
       - [ ] _your answer_
 
-      ## Subtract
+      ## Walkthrough
 
-      _could_
+      ### Subtract
 
       The new export.
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
+
+      ### Session token
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — reads the caller's token
       """
+    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" does not contain "_critical: security_"
     And the commit "gtd(judge): build.review.ranking → build.review.carrying" has a body containing "Gtd-Judge:"
     And the commit subjects end with:
       """
@@ -137,7 +147,7 @@ Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
       gtd(check): build.review.carrying → build.review.await-review
       """
 
-  Scenario: a chunk the judge is unsure about is listed as critical
+  Scenario: a finding the judge is unsure about is listed as critical
     Given step "build.review.reviewing" writes ".gtd/REVIEW.md" with:
       """
       # Review: abc1234
@@ -150,49 +160,35 @@ Feature: the final review lists what matters most first
 
       - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — subtract(a, b)
 
-      ## Session token
-
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — reads the caller's token
-
       ## AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#2-2 — returns the raw difference
 
-      ## Saved format
+      ## Session token
 
-      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-2 — what callers persist
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — reads the caller's token
+
+      ## Token in logs
+
+      - [ ] ./src/calc.ts#1-1 — where it is logged
       """
     And judge step "build.review.ranking" answers:
       """
-      [{"id":"C1.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.security","answer":"no","p":0.4},{"id":"C2.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.blastRadius","answer":"contract","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.newConcept","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
+      [{"id":"C1.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C1.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.security","answer":"no","p":0.4},{"id":"C2.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C2.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.security","answer":"yes","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C3.newConcept","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.security","answer":"no","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.reversibility","answer":"two-way","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.blastRadius","answer":"local","p":0.9},{"id":"C4.newConcept","answer":"yes","p":0.9}]
       """
     When the process is driven
     Then the process rests at "build.review.await-review"
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      # Review: abc1234
+      ## Findings
 
-      <!-- base: 0000000 -->
-
-      ## Session token
+      ### AC-1 ignores floating point
 
       _critical: judge unsure_
       """
     And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
       """
-      ## AC-1 ignores floating point
-
-      _should: contract_
-      """
-    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
-      """
-      ## Saved format
+      ### Token in logs
 
       _should: new concept_
       """
-    And ".gtd/REVIEW.md" contains:
-      """
-      ## Subtract
-
-      _could_
-      """