# Reconciliation Review — PRD vs. Architecture Spine

- PRD: `D:\mita\wow-2nd\_bmad-output\planning-artifacts\prds\prd-wow20-2026-08-14\prd.md`
- Spine: `D:\mita\wow-2nd\_bmad-output\planning-artifacts\architecture\architecture-wow20-2026-08-14\ARCHITECTURE-SPINE.md`
- Reviewer: reconcile reviewer (independent)
- Date: 2026-08-14
- External verification: OKF 0.2 SPEC (GoogleCloudPlatform/knowledge-catalog `okf/SPEC.md`) fetched and checked for the `log.md` convention.

---

## 1. Coverage of FR-1..FR-16 and NFR-1..NFR-7

| ID | Requirement (short) | Spine coverage | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| FR-1 | Sources bereitstellen (local material, no URL fetch) | AD-2, AD-3, AD-12 + Capability Map | **AD/CC** |
| FR-2 | Sources vs. Curated Knowledge unterscheiden | AD-2 | **AD** |
| FR-3 | Provenienz bewahren | AD-4 + CC `Provenance` | **AD** |
| FR-4 | Sources gegen bestehendes Wissen verarbeiten | AD-4, AD-5 | **AD** |
| FR-5 | Concepts erzeugen | AD-5, AD-7 | **AD** |
| FR-6 | Bestehende Concepts aktualisieren | AD-5, AD-7 | **AD** |
| FR-7 | Wissen synthetisieren | AD-4, AD-5, AD-16 | **AD** |
| FR-8 | Widersprüche sichtbar behandeln | AD-16 (+ AD-4 provenance of disagreements) | **AD** |
| FR-9 | OKF-0.2-konforme Concepts | AD-1, AD-15, CC `Concept format` | **AD/CC** |
| FR-10 | Concepts miteinander verlinken | AD-8, CC `Concept relationships` | **AD** |
| FR-11 | Progressive Discovery | AD-9 | **AD** |
| FR-12 | Inkrementell weiterentwickeln | AD-5 (+ AD-14 history) | **AD** |
| FR-13 | Menschliche Kuratierung berücksichtigen | AD-15 | **AD** |
| FR-14 | Änderungen nachvollziehbar (Git) | AD-14, CC `Update history` | **AD** |
| FR-15 | Tool-unabhängiger Zugriff | AD-1, AD-8, AD-9 | **AD** |
| FR-16 | Consumer vom Compiler entkoppeln | AD-10, AD-13 | **AD** |
| NFR-1 | Portability | AD-1 + FT-7 | **AD** |
| NFR-2 | Human Readability | AD-15 binds NFR-2, CC `Concept format` | **AD/CC** |
| NFR-3 | Agent Readability | AD-8, AD-9, AD-13 (binds FR-15) | **AD (partial)** |
| NFR-4 | Version-Control Friendliness | AD-14 | **AD** |
| NFR-5 | No Mandatory Runtime | AD-1, AD-11 + FT-1 | **AD** |
| NFR-6 | Vendor Independence | AD-10 + CC `Agent-specific behavior` | **AD** |
| NFR-7 | Graceful Partial Knowledge | AD-4, AD-16 (both bind NFR-7) | **AD** |

**Verdict:** Full coverage. No FR or NFR lands in a NO category.

---

## 2. Assumptions A-1..A-5 and Guardrails (§ 8) vs. the Spine

| PRD item | Spine status | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| **A-1 — Target user / no fully autonomous unchecked process (SM-C3 linked)** | Not referenced | **Not contradicted, but silently not picked up.** No AD/rule addresses the boundary between automation and human oversight/correctability. SM-C3 ("Nachvollziehbarkeit > Autonomie") is never mapped. **GAP — LOW**, shared with OQ-1 below. |
| **A-2 — Git-versioned OKF Bundle is canonical state (= § 8.2)** | AD-1 + CC `Canonical knowledge` / `Canonical evidence` | Covered. Clarified: canonical evidence is `raw/`. |
| **A-3 — No dedicated GUI in v1** | Not referenced | Not contradicted. Addressed indirectly by AD-11 (no server, agent runtime) and D-7 (no review workflow/UI). AD-17 rule 3 stays CLI/file/git-based. **Adheres by silence; no explicit statement** — LOW. |
| **A-4 — Source acquisition is not core; local material only, no URL fetch in v1** | AD-12 + Deferred D-1 | Covered — D-1 explicitly defers HTTP fetch/Context7 etc. until a bottleneck. |
| **A-5 — BMAD/Claude Code/Codex/CodeGraph are sources or consumers, not core** | AD-10, AD-12, AD-13, Architectural Boundary (`Only the middle box is Wiki of Wikis`) | Covered. |
| **§ 8.1 — OKF used, not replaced; no competing ontology** | AD-1, AD-15, Stack (`Open Knowledge Format 0.2`) | Covered. **Verified externally:** the spine's `log.md` label is a legitimate OKF 0.2 reserved filename (scoped update history, §3.1/§9 of the SPEC), and OKF requires consumers to tolerate unknown extension keys. The spine does **not** invent an OKF dialect. |
| **§ 8.2 — Derived indices/caches are not Source of Truth** | AD-1 `Derived` list + FT-4 | Covered. |
| **§ 8.3 — Separation of Concerns: Sources → Compilation → Bundle → Consumers** | AD-2, AD-12, AD-13, AD-5; Capability Map | Covered. |
| **§ 8.4 — Complexity guardrail (infrastructure only if required for core)** | AD-11, AD-12, AD-13, D-2/D-3/D-4, FT-8 | Covered. |

**Contradictions:** none found.

**Silently dropped:** A-1/SM-C3 (human oversight/correctability posture) and (weakly) A-3 (no explicit no-GUI statement). Neither is contradicted, both are just not picked up.

---

## 3. PRD-delegated Architecture Tickets (Open Questions 2/3/4), plus OQ-5 and OQ-6

**PRD OQ-2 — Verification / trust-metadata model → ANSWEred by AD-15**

- Maps to `generated`, `verified` with `human:` prefix, `status`, `stale_after` (exact OKF 0.2 fields).
- v1 default preserved: machine-generated, unreviewed → `generated` set, `verified` unset until human review. PRD's Note-for-PM honored.
- The human-workflow side is additionally deferred in D-7 (no dedicated review workflow/UI in MVP), consistent with A-3.
- **Status: answered.**

**PRD OQ-3 — Compilation scope / relevant-concepts discovery → ANSWERED by AD-17 (and AD-11)**

- AD-17 closes with the functional rationale: relevance must be implemented with textual, deterministic means (grep/ripgrep, Markdown traversal, link-following), not embedding/vector infrastructure, because retrieval is consumer behavior (AD-13). This faithfully executes PRD § 12's explicit request.
- **Status: answered.**

**PRD OQ-4 — Conflict resolution → ANSWERED by AD-16 and AD-17**

- AD-16: classification (NEW / CONFIRMING / CORRECTING / CONTRADICTING / REDUNDANT); contradictions preserved explicitly, never silently resolved; disagreement sources remain traceable; uncertainty may be part of a concept (FR-8, NFR-7).
- AD-17 rule 4: producer-level conflict handling — productive contribution wins, a producer may not delete/rewrite a scope if it would effectively replace another producer's work; otherwise the conflict is documented in `log.md` and left open. This is the full answer (data-level + producer-level) and stays CLI/git/file based per A-3.
- **Status: answered.**

**PRD OQ-5 — Source lifecycle (removal/replacement/revocation) → DEFERRED (D-5), answered at decision level**

- D-5 explicitly addresses it: "MVP assumes additive Source ingestion; revisit before supporting deletion, superseding or revocation." AD-3 reinforces it: raw sources are immutable, new versions become new/versioned sources, source lifecycle and replacement semantics deferred.
- Adherence to AD-4 is preserved (removed sources simply stop contributing).
- A "revoked/false source" case is not materially discussed in the spine — D-5 carries the load. Acceptable as a consciously deferred decision, but the PRD asked a substantive product question and the spine only parked it. **Status: deferred with explicit handling; a residual product question remains (see Findings #13).**

**PRD OQ-6 — Product name → NOT ANSWERED**

- The spine uses "Wiki of Wikis" functionally in frontmatter and as the PRD companion; no statement on whether it is final product name or project name. The spine is not obligated to answer this (outside its remit), so it is intentionally not answered.
- **Status: not answered (arguably out of scope for a build-substrate spine); flag for the broader program, not block the spine.**

---

## 4. Non-Goals (§ 5) and MVP Out-of-Scope (§ 6.2) — re-admission check

| Non-goal / out-of-scope item | Spine posture | Re-admitted? |
|---|---|---|
| Vector database | Stack (`none`), D-2, AD-13 (vector search is consumer-side) | **No** |
| Knowledge graph database | AD-8 (graph is optional derivation, never canonical) | **No** |
| General RAG platform / retrieval-as-core | AD-13 + Retrieval-replacement FT-3 | **No** |
| Enterprise search / KM suite | not touched; boundary diagram keeps core small | **No** |
| Web UI / Wiki rendering server / server runtime | AD-11 (`kein eigener Serverprozess`), Stack (`Server runtime none`) | **No** |
| MCP server | Stack (`MCP none`), D-4 | **No** |
| Automatic internet research / webcrawler | AD-12, D-1 | **No** |
| Automatic scheduling / source observation | D-6 (stale detection deferred) | **No** |
| BMAD / Claude-Code / CodeGraph integration (as core) | AD-10, AD-12 consumed into `raw/` as sources; AD-13 lists CodeGraph as consumer-side | **No** |
| Multi-user rights / enterprise governance | absent from core; AD-17 is lease/git-level, not auth | **No** |
| Own OKF dialect / additional knowledge schema | AD-1 (`exclusively OKF-0.2`), AD-15 (one data model), Stack; `log.md` verified OKF-native | **No** |
| Vector embeddings, vector search | Stack, D-2 | **No** |
| Retrieval as core behavior | AD-13 states the doctrine | **No** |
| Block-until-resolution (mandatory waiting) | AD-16 preserves conflicts; AD-17 surfaces them in `log.md` — no blocking mechanism anywhere | **No** |

**Verdict:** the spine strictly preserves the scope. No non-goal is re-admitted. The principle "future functions may become integrations around the compiler" (§ 6.2) is implemented through the D-1/D-2/D-4 deferred entries.

---

## 5. Quiet Requirements

**5a. Core value promise — synthesis rather than copy (FR-2 / SM-2)**

Preserved: AD-2 (`Eine Kopie des Quelldokuments ist keine Compilation`), AD-4 (source-grounded synthesis), AD-5 (incremental, not regenerate-all), AD-16 (reconciliation, not concatenation). SM-2 is not mapped explicitly, but FR-5/FR-7 carriers carry it. **Preserved.**

**5b. Graceful partial knowledge (NFR-7)**

Preserved: AD-4 (may not treat own syntheses as new evidence) and AD-16 (uncertainty may be part of a concept; contradictions preserved) both bind NFR-7. **Preserved — this is the strongest carry. Exception: OQ-1/AD-4 (may a generated concept be the sole provenance of another generated concept) is left as an open question, so in one edge, grounding of partial knowledge is not fully closed.**

**5c. "Retrieval is consumer behavior" doctrine**

Elevated to a first-class AD (AD-13), reinforced by AD-8/AD-9/AD-11 and D-2. The spine also applies it defensively to relevance determination (AD-17), which is a faithful interpretation of PRD § 12. **Preserved and made architecturally load-bearing.**

---

## Findings

### HIGH

1. **Open Question 6 (product name) is not answered anywhere in the spine and is silently absent.** The spine uses "Wiki of Wikis" as if settled. This is likely out of remit for a build-substrate spine, so it is recorded here for the program rather than raised as a rejection. `ARCHITECTURE-SPINE.md` frontmatter `name: Wiki of Wikis`.

2. **Open Question 5 (source lifecycle) is only deferred (D-5), not answered.** The PRD asked a substantive product question ("Was geschieht mit Wissen, wenn eine Source entfernt…wird?"). The spine stops at "additive only, revisit later." Acceptable as an explicit deferral; the full product answer remains open across all ADs.

### MEDIUM

3. **`raw/` is called immutable while "Source Lifecycle and Replacement-Semantik bleiben für den MVP deferred" (AD-3).** These two statements are tensioned, not contradictory (immutability holds in the additive MVP; versioned replacement is the deferred exit). Must be reconciled before D-5 is revisited, or "immutable" must be scoped to "immutable for the lifetime of the MVP."

4. **No single AD or consistency-convention row binds NFR-3 (Agent Readability) explicitly.** NFR-3 is covered only indirectly via AD-8/AD-9/AD-13, whose binds list FR-15 (not NFR-3). In a large agent-generated wiki, NFR-3 deserves an explicit guarantee, e.g., a rule that bundle navigation must not require a specialized tool. Consider AD-9/AD-13 extending their binds to NFR-3.

5. **SM-C3 (Counter-Metric: comprehensible/correctable > autonomous) and its coupling to A-1 (no fully autonomous unchecked process) are silently dropped.** No AD, convention row, or fitness test carries the "human can intervene/correct" requirement. NFR-2 and D-7 touch it only implicitly. The spine should express the correctability guarantee at least once (e.g., a fitness test: "a human can correct a generated Concept without the compiler erasing the correction" — AD-15's persistence clause almost says this for curation, but not for corrections).

### LOW

6. **A-3 (no GUI in v1) is never stated explicitly.** Not contradicted (D-7 and AD-17 are consistent with it), but a spine that claims `binds: FR-1..FR-16, NFR-1..NFR-7` leaves the UI guardrail implicit. Suggest one CC row or an A-binding note. Relatedly, the spine has no explicit "no GUI" line, only the indirect implication.

7. **Deferred D-5 (source deletion/replacement) is not cross-referenced in AD-3's binds nor in an Open Question entry** (Q-1..Q-3 exist; OQ-5 has no twin). The Deferred section covers the subject, so this is a cross-reference/traceability nit.

8. **PRD OQ-1 (human-authored, fully manual Concepts as first-class knowledge) is not explicitly echoed.** AD-15 assumes before reaching consensus: "human curation is represented as OKF Concepts with metadata" is given, which is a reasonable v1 stance (treated as first class), but the spine does not record it as a decision — leaving the spine alive to AD-15's own open-side of Q-3/-D-7.

9. **The spine's mermaid overview (Design Paradigm) omits the Reconcile/Validate steps shown by AD-5/AD-6** — cosmetic drift between the high-level diagram and the AD text; the detail ADs carry the full flow (Analyze → Reconcile → Plan → Mutate → Validate), so this is purely presentation.

10. **PRD § 12's second forwarded question — Bundle-Layout (Source vs. Curated Knowledge placement)** — is answered by the Structural Seed (`raw/` vs `wiki/`) and CC rows, but the spine never labels that answer with the PRD's exact boundary requirement (FR-2/§ 8.3). Traceability nit: the spine's seed says `raw/` and `wiki/` are "Architekturgrenzen" — the invariant is intact but the PRD anchor is not cited.

11. **AD-17 rule 3 is German and much more conversational than the rest of the spine**, and its embedded sequence (materialize → disable/lease → mutation scoped → commit + release) is not mirrored in the Consistency Conventions table. It is the longest and most implementation-flavored block; inconsistent with the spine's stated "conceptually not prescribing implementation" register. Worth normalizing into the CC table or restructuring, but not a correctness issue.

12. **`status` default per OKF 0.2 is `stable` when absent.** AD-15's list (`draft | stable | deprecated`) is correct as allowed values, but combined with the v1 "unreviewed by default" posture, an unreviewed Concept could silently default to `stable`. Consider whether the spine wants to mandate `status: draft` (or `generated` + no `verified`) as the explicit v1 default instead of relying on OKF's `stable`-when-absent default. The PRD (§ 4.3 FR-9) delegates field selection to the architecture, so this is a design suggestion, not a coverage gap.

13. **The "revoked/false source" branch of OQ-5 lacks even a placeholder.** D-5 names deletion, superseding, revocation generically as "revisit," but the spine nowhere sketches what revocation should mean for provenance-weight (the PRD's A-4/SM-3 provenance promise implies some treatment eventually). Not a v1 blocker.

---

## Sources not found / notes

- No FR or NFR is uncovered.
- No assumption is contradicted; two assumptions (A-1/SM-C3, weakly A-3) are silently not picked up.
- All three PRD-delegated architecture tickets (OQ-2, OQ-3, OQ-4) are answered by ADs; each is cross-checked against the PRD's own Note-for-PM constraints (machine-generated-unreviewed default; CLI/datei-based feasibility).
- OQ-5 is deferred (D-5) with explicit handling; OQ-6 is not answered (out of remit).
- Non-Goals / MVP Out-of-Scope: no re-admission.
- Quiet requirements: synthesis-not-copy (preserved), graceful partial knowledge (preserved, with one open edge behind Q-1), retrieval-is-consumer-behavior (elevated to AD-13 and applied to relevance determination per PRD § 12).
- No contradictions with the OKF-0.2 spec; the spine's `log.md` and trust-forecast metadata usage are OKF-conformant (verified against `okf/SPEC.md`), so § 8.1's "no own OKF dialect" guardrail holds.