blueprint-review-read

Read the documents and write the findings

.blueprint/answers.json names the documents (documents, one path per line), what kind they are (kind), what the person is worried about (focus) and how far to go (proposals). The person may not be a lawyer or an engineer: write for them in plain words, in their language.

Change nothing in the repository: this step only reads. The documents are the person's originals and stay exactly as they are — the next check fails if one of them changes. Write only under .blueprint/.

First, what chaff finds by machine

For each document run, from the folder, sh <base pack>/checks/chaff.sh <document> --experimental --compact. Three rules read the document's structure (chaff tree <document> shows the addresses they use):

• dangling-reference — a reference such as "第12条" or "Section 4.2" to a provision that does not exist;
• numbering-gap — articles, paragraphs or items numbered with a gap or out of order;
• duplicate-definition — the same term defined twice.

Every one of these must appear in the findings as a finding with a machine field ({ "rule", "file", "line" }: the rule and line as chaff reported them, the file as documents names it), or in dismissed with the same fields and a why — for example, a reference into another law that the document names. Do not claim a machine result chaff did not report. Other chaff findings (style) are not the subject of this review; leave them.

Then, what only reading finds

Read the whole of every document, starting with focus. Look for:

• contradiction — two provisions that cannot both hold (different amounts, periods, parties, conditions; one permits what another forbids);
• ambiguity — a provision a reasonable reader could apply two ways, a term used but never defined, a deadline without a start;
• omission — something the rest of the document relies on but never says (who pays, what happens when a condition fails).

Report only what the text supports. A finding you cannot quote is not a finding.