dot-iu-cutter v0.1 — Gate 4 Review: Implementation Readiness Boundary

Date: 2026-05-15
Reviewer: GPT
Review Gate: Gate 4 — Implementation Readiness Boundary
Files reviewed: D8 §6, D8 §8, D8 §9, Design Review Control
Scope: Review only. No implementation, no migration, no PG mutation.

---

1. Verdict

gate_4_status: PASS_WITH_BLOCKERS_IDENTIFIED
hidden_implementation_dependency_found: false
schema_gaps_classified: true
missing_instrumentation_classified: true
open_questions_classified: true
ready_for_user_design_pass_decision: true
ready_for_implementation_planning: false
ready_for_implementation: false

Gate 4 passes because the design does not hide implementation dependencies. It explicitly names schema gaps, missing instrumentation, governance gaps, and open decisions.

However, implementation planning is blocked until the required closure items below are handled.

---

2. Classification Summary

2.1 Blockers before implementation planning

These must be resolved before any implementation planning prompt is issued:

1. User PASS on design phase after all 4 gates.
2. Điều 37 owner assignment for 5 governance gaps.
3. Migration design for P0 schema gaps.
4. User/policy decision for auto-accept thresholds.
5. Điều 33/43 placement decision for semantic_thread / universal_edges fit.
6. Điều 44 Family Registry submission/closure for new object families.

2.2 Governance closure required

Governance closure is required for:

• Threading roles.
• Backlog custodian.
• Capability-intake reviewer.
• DOT-pair signing authority.
• Audience-scope access-control authority.
• Family Registry entries.
• Approval/risk rules for auto-accept and audience leakage.

2.3 Schema migration candidates

Schema work must be separated into its own design phase. Do not implement from the current design documents.

Priority grouping:

• P0: minimal schema required before implementation planning.
• P1: MVP cutter fields/tables.
• P2: semantic threading objects.
• P3: retrieval/instrumentation objects.

2.4 Instrumentation backlog

Nine instrumentation items are correctly listed as not built:

1. Retrieval log events.
2. Co-edit detection.
3. Co-citation capture.
4. Co-retrieval capture.
5. CDC / NOTIFY-LISTEN intake plumbing.
6. Thread centroid embedding.
7. Health-score aggregator.
8. DOT-pair signature recording.
9. Auth-context propagation.

2.5 User / Council decisions needed

User or governance council decisions are required for:

• Auto-accept thresholds.
• Retrieval target values.
• Audience definitions.
• Wrong-audience handling.
• Context pack caching.
• Per-unit block shape.
• Self-review cadence.
• Backlog scope.

---

3. Gate 4 Findings

3.1 No hidden implementation dependency found

D8 and review-control openly list 56 schema gaps, 9 missing instrumentation items, 5 governance gaps, and 26 open questions. This is the correct behavior for design phase.

3.2 P0 schema gaps are the critical path

P0 items from review-control:

1. canonical_address on tac_logical_unit.
2. manifest_envelope + manifest_unit_block.
3. cut_change_set with rollback_key.
4. verify_result.
5. decision_backlog_entry.
6. review_decision.

These should become the first scope of a separate schema/migration planning phase, after User PASS and governance closures.

3.3 Semantic threading cannot be implemented before placement decision

Semantic threading depends on whether universal_edges can represent membership status, confidence, evidence, lifecycle, and provenance.

Until that audit is complete, implementation planning should not assume separate semantic_thread_membership tables or direct universal_edges reuse.

3.4 Retrieval cannot be implemented before auth-context propagation

Thread-first retrieval and audience-scoped search require role/scope/tool permission/data classification context.

Without auth-context propagation, retrieval implementation risks leaking internal/draft/restricted content. This is a security/governance blocker for retrieval implementation.

3.5 Governance gaps must be owner-assigned before implementation planning

The 5 governance gaps are not optional. They define who can approve, review, sign, route, and own the new cutter ecosystem.

Implementation planning without those owners would create ungoverned infrastructure.

---

4. Recommended Next Step After Gate 4

Do not proceed to implementation planning yet.

Recommended next step:

1. Create a consolidated Design Review Summary.
2. Ask User whether to PASS the design phase with notes.
3. If User PASS: create governance-closure package, not implementation package.
4. Route governance gaps and open questions through Decision Backlog / Điều 37 / Điều 44 / Điều 32.
5. Only after governance closure: create schema/migration planning prompt for P0 items.

---

5. Gate 4 Conclusion

gate_4_result: PASS_WITH_BLOCKERS_IDENTIFIED
all_gates_reviewed: true
implementation_allowed: false
next_step: consolidate_all_gate_reviews_for_user_decision