# Initial Observations - Run 2

**Timestamp:** 2026-02-09T22:50:00Z
**Evaluator:** aphoria-doc-evaluator
**Phase:** Pre-implementation review

---

## Team State vs Reality

### Observation 1: .aphoria/config.toml Status

**Team Said:**
> "Not Started Yet: Day 3: Scanning (no .aphoria/config.toml yet)"

**Reality:**
```bash
$ ls -la /home/jml/Workspace/stemedb/applications/aphoria/dogfood/dbpool/.aphoria/
-rw-rw-r-- 1 jml jml 2126 Feb  9 21:28 config.toml
```

**Analysis:**
- `.aphoria/config.toml` EXISTS (created during reset)
- Team incorrectly believes it doesn't exist
- This is NOT a team error - they may not have checked hidden directories

**Potential Documentation Gap:**
- CHECKLIST.md Day 3 says "Create `.aphoria/config.toml`" but it already exists
- Should say "Verify `.aphoria/config.toml`" or "Update `.aphoria/config.toml`"
- Need to check: Does Day 3 acknowledge config.toml is pre-created?

---

### Observation 2: Pre-Flight Validator Positioning

**Team Question:**
> "Do you want me to: ... 2. Run the pre-flight validator first? To ensure the environment is ready."

**Documentation Says (CHECKLIST.md:10-13):**
```markdown
### ⚡ Quick Start: Run Pre-Flight Validator

Before manually checking each item, run the automated validator:
```

**Analysis:**
- Pre-flight validator IS documented as first step
- Team found it (mentioned in "What's Working Well")
- But team is ASKING whether to run it instead of just running it
- Suggests positioning isn't strong enough - "Quick Start" may be seen as optional

**Potential Documentation Gap:**
- Heading says "Quick Start" which implies optional/alternative path
- Should be: "REQUIRED: Run Pre-Flight Validator First"
- Or move it above "Pre-Execution Requirements" as mandatory Step 0

---

### Observation 3: Claim Creation Confidence

**Team Question:**
> "Help create the 27 corpus claims now? I can extract claims from the authority source documents and generate the CLI commands."

**Team Plan:**
> "Create 3 practice claims following the example"
> "Create remaining 24-27 claims using templates in CHECKLIST.md"

**Analysis:**
- Team offering to help create claims suggests templates may not be sufficient
- BUT team also plans to use templates, so they found them
- This is GOOD - team is cautious and wants to verify approach before creating all 27

**Not a Documentation Gap (yet):**
- Need to wait and see if templates are actually insufficient
- Could be team being thorough rather than templates being unclear

---

### Observation 4: Sequential Understanding

**Team Understanding:**
> "The workflow: corpus → code violations → scan → fix → re-scan"

**Analysis:**
- ✅ Team correctly understands Day 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 sequence
- ✅ Team verified current state (0 claims)
- ✅ Team plans to start with 3 practice claims (following docs)

**Not a Gap:**
- Sequential flow is well understood

---

## Early Warning Signals

### Signal 1: Hidden Files Visibility
Team didn't notice `.aphoria/config.toml` exists. Possible causes:
1. Didn't run `ls -la` (only `ls`)
2. Documentation doesn't explicitly say "config.toml is pre-created"
3. Day 3 wording "Create .aphoria/config.toml" misleading

**Action:** Check Day 3 wording when team reaches it

### Signal 2: Mandatory vs Optional
Team treating pre-flight validator as optional choice. Possible causes:
1. "Quick Start" heading implies alternative path
2. Not positioned as blocking requirement
3. Could skip directly to "Manual Verification" section

**Action:** If team skips validator, this is a HIGH PRIORITY gap

### Signal 3: Template Self-Sufficiency
Team asking for help creating claims. Need to monitor:
1. Do templates provide enough examples?
2. Are authority source documents clear enough?
3. Is the claim-extraction-example.md sufficient?

**Action:** Wait to see if team successfully creates claims using templates

---

## Predictions

### Likely Success
- Team will successfully create 3 practice claims
- Team will find and use templates in CHECKLIST.md
- Team will verify claims with curl command

### Likely Confusion Points
- Day 3: "Create .aphoria/config.toml" when it already exists
- Authority tier selection (which tier for which source)
- Explanation format (maintaining WHAT+WHY+CONSEQUENCE structure)

### Unlikely Issues
- Team seems well-prepared and thorough
- Documentation review was comprehensive
- Understanding of concepts is solid

---

## Next Evaluation Checkpoint

**When to log next progress:**
- After team runs validator (or skips it)
- After team creates 3 practice claims
- After team attempts to create all 27 claims

**When to trigger review:**
- Team says "Day 1 complete"
- Team says "claims ready for review"
- Team reports confusion or blocking issue

**What to watch:**
1. Did they run validator?
2. Did templates suffice for claim creation?
3. Did they find config.toml issue on Day 3?
4. Did they successfully create 25-30 claims?

---

## Documentation Hypothesis (To Test)

**Hypothesis 1:** "Quick Start" heading makes validator seem optional
- **Test:** Did team skip validator?
- **Expected if gap:** Team proceeds to Day 1 without running validator

**Hypothesis 2:** Day 3 "Create config.toml" misleading when file exists
- **Test:** Team confusion when reaching Day 3
- **Expected if gap:** Team tries to create file that already exists

**Hypothesis 3:** Templates insufficient for claim creation
- **Test:** Team asks for help or creates wrong format
- **Expected if gap:** Team can't complete claims without assistance

---

## Status

**Current Phase:** Pre-implementation (Day 1 about to start)
**Team Confidence:** High
**Blocking Issues:** None identified yet
**Ready for Next Phase:** Yes

**Next Action:** Wait for team to proceed with validator and claim creation, then log results.
