# Quality Checklists — Reference

## General Quality

- [ ] All core conclusions have L1/L2 tier factual support
- [ ] No use of vague words like "possibly", "probably" without annotating uncertainty
- [ ] Comparison dimensions are complete with no key differences missed
- [ ] At least one real use case validates conclusions
- [ ] References are complete with accessible links
- [ ] Every citation can be directly verified by the user (source verifiability)
- [ ] Structure hierarchy is clear; executives can quickly locate information

## Decomposition Completeness

- [ ] Domain discovery search executed: searched "key factors when [problem domain]" before starting research
- [ ] Completeness probes applied: every probe from `references/comparison-frameworks.md` checked against sub-questions
- [ ] No uncovered areas remain: all gaps filled with sub-questions or justified as not applicable

## Internet Search Depth

- [ ] Every sub-question was searched with at least 3-5 different query variants
- [ ] At least 3 perspectives from the Perspective Rotation were applied and searched
- [ ] Search saturation reached: last searches stopped producing new substantive information
- [ ] Adjacent fields and analogous problems were searched, not just direct matches
- [ ] Contrarian viewpoints were actively sought ("why not X", "X criticism", "X failure")
- [ ] Practitioner experience was searched (production use, real-world results, lessons learned)
- [ ] Iterative deepening completed: follow-up questions from initial findings were searched
- [ ] No sub-question relies solely on training data without web verification

## Component Option Breadth

- [ ] `00_question_decomposition.md` contains a Component Option Search Plan
- [ ] Every component area was searched across simple baseline, established production, open-source, commercial/vendor, current SOTA, adjacent-domain, no-build/defer, and known-bad options where applicable
- [ ] Every component area has at least 3 realistic candidates, or a documented explanation of why broad searches found fewer
- [ ] Each lead candidate has official/source-of-truth evidence plus independent validation when available
- [ ] Each component area includes at least one baseline/fallback option and at least one rejected or experimental option when possible
- [ ] Alternative names, synonyms, and neighboring-domain terms were searched before declaring the option landscape complete
- [ ] Licensing, runtime, platform, maintenance, and unsupported-scenario searches were performed for every lead, fallback, and rejected candidate

## Mode A Specific

- [ ] Phase 1 completed: AC assessment was presented to and confirmed by user
- [ ] AC assessment consistent: Solution draft respects the (possibly adjusted) acceptance criteria and restrictions
- [ ] Competitor analysis included: Existing solutions were researched
- [ ] All components have comparison tables: Each component lists alternatives with tools, advantages, limitations, security, cost
- [ ] Component options are broad: component tables include baseline, production, open-source, commercial/vendor, SOTA/research, adjacent-domain, defer/no-build, and disqualified options where applicable
- [ ] Tools/libraries verified: Suggested tools actually exist and work as described
- [ ] Component fit matrix completed: `06_component_fit_matrix.md` (or `06_component_fit_matrix/` if split) exists and every selected component/tool/pattern is marked `Selected`
- [ ] No field-adjacent substitution: no selected candidate is chosen only because it solves a similar class of problem while failing the project's explicit constraints
- [ ] Testing strategy covers AC: Tests map to acceptance criteria
- [ ] Tech stack documented (if Phase 3 ran): `tech_stack.md` has evaluation tables, risk assessment, and learning requirements
- [ ] Security analysis documented (if Phase 4 ran): `security_analysis.md` has threat model and per-component controls

## Mode B Specific

- [ ] Findings table complete: All identified weak points documented with solutions
- [ ] Weak point categories covered: Functional, security, and performance assessed
- [ ] New draft is self-contained: Written as if from scratch, no "updated" markers
- [ ] Performance column included: Mode B comparison tables include performance characteristics
- [ ] Previous draft issues addressed: Every finding in the table is resolved in the new draft
- [ ] Existing selected components were challenged against a broad alternative landscape before being kept
- [ ] Existing component fit audited: every old and new component/tool/pattern was checked against `restrictions.md`, `acceptance_criteria.md`, and the Project Constraint Matrix
- [ ] Rejected/experimental candidates are not lead recommendations unless the user explicitly accepted the risk

## Timeliness Check (High-Sensitivity Domain BLOCKING)

When the research topic has Critical or High sensitivity level:

- [ ] Timeliness sensitivity assessment completed: `00_question_decomposition.md` contains a timeliness assessment section
- [ ] Source timeliness annotated: Every source has publication date, timeliness status, version info
- [ ] No outdated sources used as factual evidence (Critical: within 6 months; High: within 1 year)
- [ ] Version numbers explicitly annotated for all technical products/APIs/SDKs
- [ ] Official sources prioritized: Core conclusions have support from official documentation/blogs
- [ ] Cross-validation completed: Key technical information confirmed from at least 2 independent sources
- [ ] Download page directly verified: Platform support info comes from real-time extraction of official download pages
- [ ] Protocol/feature names searched: Searched for product-supported protocol names (MCP, ACP, etc.)
- [ ] GitHub Issues mined: Reviewed product's GitHub Issues popular discussions
- [ ] Community hotspots identified: Identified and recorded feature points users care most about

## Target Audience Consistency Check (BLOCKING)

- [ ] Research boundary clearly defined: `00_question_decomposition.md` has clear population/geography/timeframe/level boundaries
- [ ] Every source has target audience annotated in `01_source_registry.md` (or category files under `01_source_registry/` if split)
- [ ] Mismatched sources properly handled (excluded, annotated, or marked reference-only)
- [ ] No audience confusion in fact cards: Every fact has target audience consistent with research boundary
- [ ] No audience confusion in the report: Policies/research/data cited have consistent target audiences

## Source Verifiability

- [ ] All cited links are publicly accessible (annotate `[login required]` if not)
- [ ] Citations include exact section/page/timestamp for long documents
- [ ] Cited facts have corresponding statements in the original text (no over-interpretation)
- [ ] Source publication/update dates annotated; technical docs include version numbers
- [ ] Unverifiable information annotated `[limited source]` and not sole support for core conclusions

## Exact-Fit Validation (BLOCKING)

- [ ] Project Constraint Matrix extracted from problem context before component selection
- [ ] Component fit matrix includes `Component Area`, `Option Family`, and `Pinned Mode/Config` columns
- [ ] Every selected component/tool/library/service/pattern/algorithm has evidence for required inputs/outputs and integration boundaries
- [ ] Every selected candidate has evidence for the operating context and lifecycle assumptions it must support
- [ ] Every selected candidate has evidence for non-functional targets that are binding for the project
- [ ] Known unsupported scenarios and failure reports were searched for every selected candidate
- [ ] Mismatches are recorded as disqualifiers, not softened into generic limitations
- [ ] Any candidate with unproven fit is marked `Experimental only` or escalated for user decision
- [ ] Any candidate with documented constraint conflict is marked `Rejected`

## API Capability Verification (BLOCKING)

**Applicability**: this checklist applies only when the run is classified as **Technical-component selection** (see SKILL.md → Research Output Class). For non-technical research (concept comparison, market/policy investigation, root-cause analysis, knowledge organization), skip this checklist entirely and note the skip in `05_validation_log.md`. For mixed runs, apply only to technical component areas.

For every lead candidate that is a library/SDK/framework/service:

- [ ] The exact mode/configuration the project will use is pinned in one explicit sentence (inputs, outputs, runtime); no vague "supports X" language
- [ ] `context7` (or equivalent docs lookup) was run for the candidate, with at least 3 queries: mode enumeration, project's exact mode, disqualifier probe
- [ ] All consulted URLs from context7 / official docs are appended to `01_source_registry.md` (or files under `01_source_registry/` if split)
- [ ] A Minimum Viable Example (MVE) was saved for the pinned mode in `02_fact_cards.md` / `02_fact_cards/` (or `02_mve_evidence.md`) with: source, inputs in example, outputs in example, project inputs, project outputs required, match assessment ✅/⚠️/❌
- [ ] When the MVE inputs or outputs do not exactly match the project's, the mismatch is cited from the official docs (not inferred), and the candidate is `Experimental only` or `Rejected`
- [ ] When a library has multiple modes, each project-relevant mode appears as its own candidate row (not a single library row that softens across modes)
- [ ] Restrictions × Candidate-Modes sub-matrix in `06_component_fit_matrix.md` (or files under `06_component_fit_matrix/` if split) is filled for every lead candidate, with one row per numbered restriction and per numbered acceptance criterion
- [ ] Sub-matrix uses ✅ / ❌ / ❓ / N/A only — no free-form prose substitutes
- [ ] No `Selected` candidate has any ❌ or ❓ cell in its sub-matrix
- [ ] "Validation gate required" footnotes are explicitly classified as either *API capability* (must be resolved here) or *runtime quality* (may be carried forward)
- [ ] Paraphrased capability claims in fact cards have been cross-checked against the literal mode-enumeration evidence (no `mono, inertial → mono-inertial` style conflation)
