# Plan Review Panel — insuniverse-docs-50-domain

**Plan**: `.claude/plans/insuniverse-docs-50-domain-m1.plan.md` · **Plan version**: `sha256:55d2819cd4791bddd326e7753bfdb04fc7214811ae64c829965b7cd05c83a924`
**Verdict**: `divergent` via `multi-agent`
**Quorum**: 4/3 responses · 4 distinct roles (of 4 fielded) · passed=false
**Layers**: L1 converged · L2 divergent · L3 not fired
**Halted at**: `5.2g2`

> Reason: L2 quorum not satisfied: 7 blocking finding(s): invariant/CRITICAL, invariant/CRITICAL, invariant/CRITICAL, invariant/HIGH — MCCP_REVIEW_SINGLE_PASS=deadline_pressure 로 진행한다. verdict는 divergent 그대로 봉인된다.

## Findings

| Perspective | Severity | Claim | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| invariant | CRITICAL | Gate implementations are hidden from reviewers until after plan approval | Plan line 117-122: Files to Change lists `.claude/plans/insuniverse-docs-50-domain-m1.gates.mjs` as CREATE (Task 1). Validation block lines 192-289: Calls node ./gates.mjs functions (check1-12) without showing their code. The actual gate logic exists only in the harness, which is only created during Task 1 implementation. Reviewers see specifications (Validation comments) but not implementations. |
| invariant | CRITICAL | Validation block cannot execute before implementation, breaking standard mccp pre-approval gate flow | Plan line 201: Validation block tries to run `node "$G" check1` where G=`.claude/plans/insuniverse-docs-50-domain-m1.gates.mjs`. This file does not exist until Task 1 (lines 131-135). When /mccp:plan runs the Validation block as a pre-approval gate, this command will fail with 'ENOENT' before any validation can occur. Standard mccp gates must be executable before implementation begins. |
| invariant | CRITICAL | Explicit blind spot mitigation (gate #11) has no reviewable implementation | Plan line 280: 'verify.sh --check --bootstrap 은 여전히 초록이다(관측 2) — 이 검사가 그 사각지대를 덮는 유일한 자리다' (verify.sh still passes in same state — this check is the ONLY place covering that blind spot). Gate #11 is explicitly designed to catch docs/ changes that gate #1 misses. But gate #11 is implemented in the hidden harness (line 281: `node "$G" check11`). If the harness implementation is wrong, the blind spot is not covered, and reviewers cannot detect this before approval. |
| invariant | HIGH | End-to-end path verification claim is unanchored to actual gate | Plan line 319 Acceptance item: '게이트/경로를 실제로 1회 완주하고 산출물을 확인 (단위 test 통과 ≠ 경로 작동) — 게이트 `#1`' claims complete gate/path verification is gated on #1. But gate #1 (line 201-202) only runs baseline state checks: `node "$G" check1` and `bash docs/_meta/verify/verify.sh --check --bootstrap`. Neither command verifies path completion or end-to-end workflow. The acceptance claim's scope (path completion verification) does not match the gate's actual scope (baseline health). |
| invariant | HIGH | Config key behavior validation depends on hidden implementation and undocumented test logic | Plan line 251-259 check #8: The '기대' (expectation) specifies that gate #8 must test 'surface_exit_kinds 부재 -> ia-exits 위반 1 · deferred_ref_targets 부재 -> supersedes 위반 1' (key absence causes specific violations). Plan line 256-258 '음성' section describes observed behavior: two different violation modes for two keys. But the plan also notes line 75-77: 'ia-exits' 의 키 부재 분기에는 selftest 픽스처가 없다' (ia-exits key absence branch has NO selftest fixture). This means gate #8's claimed verification is partially unverified even in the plan's own scope. The harness implementation of check8 is hidden. |
| invariant | HIGH | Markdown table parsing is documented HIGH-risk but gate implementations depend on it without shown code | Plan line 296 Risks: 'marked 표 파서가 매 라운드 새 반례를 낸다' (likelihood: 높음). Plan line 51 observation: bootstrap_permitted only reads `*Status:` rows from documents, not file creation. But gates #3-5 all depend on parsing markdown tables from ownership.md, PRD, and backlog. The table parsing code would be in the hidden harness (check3, check4, check5 implementations). Multiple gates fail if parsing is wrong, but reviewers cannot see the parsing logic. |

## Refutation attempted

| Perspective | Verdict | What was attacked |
|---|---|---|
| architect | pass | Examined boundary integrity (files to modify, ownership paths match declarations). Verified all major citations (handoffs R-1/R-2, tree count of 20 docs, backlog lines mentioning 50-domain). Checked template assignment logic: deduction that server 8 must be policy-doc@1 is sound given 3-template universe and flow/ia already taken. Confirmed unautomated checks (ia-exits key-absence verification with no selftest fixture) are explicitly marked unverified in Acceptance. Traced abstraction claims: template table in Task 5 is documentation layer; actual enforcement via per-document frontmatter. Found no structural violations of boundaries or unrealized invariant claims. |
| security | pass | Attacked plan for: (1) partial-state trust where one of two synchronized files (ownership.md vs PRD judgment table) is tampered—check#3's bidirectional exact-match validation and count verification catches both additions and deletions; (2) markdown parsing bypass where column mismatches allow silent row skips—md_table enforces exact column count and all extractors fail-fast on 0 rows per stated Risks; (3) absolute path or credential leakage in temp files—temp handling mirrors m8 harness with exit hooks and TEMPS registry, output format contains only counts and IDs; (4) scope violations where plan modifies files beyond stated boundaries—check#11 explicitly verifies `docs/` and `golden.txt` unchanged, file count implicit in acceptance; (5) CRLF normalization gaps—plan states all harness inputs strip `\\r` before parsing per Risks mitigation; (6) dangling cross-references in findings validation—check#4 specifies bidirectional table match preventing both omissions and false additions; (7) backlog marker syntax attacks where shared lines lose recipient information—check#5 explicitly tests `70-viewer` string preservation. No evidence of unvalidated trust assumptions, bypass paths, or data handling defects in plan structure. Actual harness implementation (gates.mjs) cannot be reviewed at plan stage—security depends on code review at Task 1 completion. |
| test | pass | Verification strategy & falsifiability analysis: 1. **Observations 1-12 testability:** Verified that Observations 1-4 are concrete and falsifiable (e.g., Observation 2 confirmed in verify.sh line 2974; Observation 9 confirmed with exact 2 rows in ownership.md; Observation 11 confirmed with 7 rows in backlog). All observations reference checkable artifacts. 2. **Test gate architecture:** Examined Task-to-Gate mappings (Tasks 0-8 → Gates #1-12). All 11 substantive tasks are covered by named checks in the Validation section. Tasks don't create orphaned claims without validation targets. Each Task's Action has a Validate line referencing specific check numbers. 3. **Negative case falsifiability:** Spot-checked falsifiability of key claims—e.g., check #3's negative case ("ownership 사본에 수신 `50-domain` 세 번째 행을 넣으면 FAIL"), check #6's ("파일 하나를 지우면 FAIL"), check #11's ("`docs/30-admin/x.md` 를 만들면 FAIL"). Descriptions are concrete enough to implement and test against. 4. **Mirror pattern validation:** Confirmed that the claimed harness file pattern (13-relation-contract-m8.gates.mjs) exists and follows the described structure (--help, checkN, check-all subcommands, TEMPS registry, exit hooks). This validates the plan can follow its mirrored implementation. 5. **Reference file existence:** Verified all source files referenced in the plan exist: `docs/_meta/ownership.md` (handover table present), `.claude/plans/codex-findings-backlog.md` (7 rows mentioning 50-domain confirmed), `docs/_meta/findings/11-index-code.md` and `13-relation-contract.md` (all 3 findings sections for 50-domain accounted for). 6. **Untestable claims search:** Searched for any claims not covered by gates. Two items marked `(미검증)` in Acceptance (lines 317-318) are explicitly unverified and documented as such—not defects. They represent unresolved upstream blockers (ia-exits fixture ownership, R-50-1 handover addressee), correctly escalated rather than hidden. 7. **Coverage gaps examined:** Task 5 claims template assignment for server 8종 is missing from PRD §반드시 지킬 것. Verified this claim by searching PRD—policy-doc@1 not yet assigned to 10-server/. Check #6-#7 would catch misassignment through coverage/count verification once assignment is added. 8. **Gates #1-12 coverage:** All 12 Acceptance items with gate references map to Validation section checks #1-12. No floating claims. Format lint (check #12) validated separately. Integration test (Acceptance line 319) correctly calls for post-gate end-to-end verification. Attacked the test strategy directly: tried to find a claim that could not be falsified by the described checks, or a check that was described but would not catch its stated negative case. Found neither. |
| invariant | fail | Traced gate execution order: Task 1 creates harness, Task 8 runs Validation block. Checked if Validation block can run pre-approval (it cannot — file doesn't exist). Verified that gate #1 baseline check doesn't verify path completion. Examined gate #8 config key testing and found it partially unverified. Confirmed gate #11 is solely responsible for detecting docs/ changes, a known blind spot of gate #1. Reviewed risks section for parsing brittleness. Checked that actual harness implementations are not shown in plan text, only their specifications appear as comments in Validation block. |

## Measurement

<!-- Written by plan-review/cli.js record on EVERY exit path, pass or halt.
     Machine-readable; do not hand-edit. A null field means the axis was
     not observed, never that it was zero. -->

```json
{
  "verdict": "divergent",
  "source": "multi-agent",
  "layers": {
    "l1": "converged",
    "l2": "divergent",
    "l3": "not fired"
  },
  "quorum": {
    "responded": 4,
    "required": 3,
    "roles": 4,
    "of": 4,
    "passed": false
  },
  "wall_clock_ms": 643271,
  "halt_stage": "5.2g2",
  "backlog_appended": null,
  "backlog_skipped_nonblocking": null,
  "granted": 4,
  "reviewed_plan_hash": "sha256:55d2819cd4791bddd326e7753bfdb04fc7214811ae64c829965b7cd05c83a924",
  "plan_path": ".claude/plans/insuniverse-docs-50-domain-m1.plan.md",
  "recorded_at": "2026-08-24T03:54:42.209Z"
}
```

### Recording degradations

- backlog.json absent or unreadable on a run the single-pass toggle RELAXED — backlog_appended recorded as null, NOT as zero (적재가 돌지 않은 실행과 적재할 것이 없던 실행은 다른 사실이다). 5.2g2가 실행되지 않았거나 산출물을 잃었다