nw-review

name	nw-review
description	Dispatches an independent reviewer for a durable authority, immutable oracle, candidate diff, charter set, or operational artifact.
user-invocable	true
argument-hint	[owner] [repository-relative artifact or diff identity]

NW-REVIEW

Select the reviewer that owns the artifact class. Give it the actual repository-relative artifact or candidate identity, not copied prose.

Reviews are read-only and adversarial. Every finding cites a file/line, terminal command or exhibited counterexample. APPROVE requires the artifact to survive every applicable check; missing or stale evidence is INDETERMINATE, not approval.

Review durable product/design authority at its owner, acceptance oracles with the acceptance-designer reviewer, implementation diffs with the crafter reviewer, charters with the PO reviewer, and platform artifacts with the platform reviewer. A reviewer may veto but never silently repair the artifact.

Return the verdict, reviewed identity, findings and the single upstream owner for each required correction.

Design-review question set

Structure (algebra) and time (protocol) questions that make a design review adversarial instead of confirmatory. Finds structural incoherence, never temporal holes -- a temporal gap needs the model checker (T5), not this list.

Structure (algebra):

• S1 [INSPECTIVE] -- for every finite sum type, list the cases and pair each with its domain meaning; flag any case with no meaning and any meaning split across cases.
• S2 [MECHANICAL] -- for every pair of invariants mentioning the same field, construct a state satisfying the first and check the second, delegated to a property test; "I couldn't find one" is not evidence.
• S3 [MECHANICAL] -- for every invariant proven under an added hypothesis, remove the hypothesis and verify a counterexample still exists; if none exists the hypothesis was decorative, and the conditional theorem was the signal a type was needed.
• S4 [INSPECTIVE] -- every unreachable arm of a total function must be made unreachable by the type, never by a comment.

Time (protocol):

• T5 [MECHANICAL] -- declared progress/liveness: show do-nothing; model-check liveness excludes it; safety-only: NOT_APPLICABLE.
• T6 [INSPECTIVE] -- name every fairness assumption's real guarantor, monitor, and violation consequence.
• T7 [JUDGEMENT] -- list every model step and name the real code mechanism guaranteeing its atomicity; the answer must be a code reference, never prose. If it cannot be named, the review returns the QUESTION to the human, not a verdict.

Marking rule (three values, load-bearing): MECHANICAL = a tool answers, the outcome is a fact -- if the tool was not executed, the review is INCOMPLETE BY CONSTRUCTION, never approvable. INSPECTIVE = no tool, but the answer is a fact readable on the artifact. JUDGEMENT = the answer is a question returned to the human, never a verdict.