Reviewer Critical Review — Funding Drilldown L2 Current Artifacts

Review

Correct

• The canonical result folder exists and currently contains a result contract README: docs/1-projects/bsfz-funding/funding-drilldown-L2-results/README.md. The README defines the expected L2-X-result.md files and run gates G → A → B → D/E/F → C → H (README.md:7-22).
• All eight L2 planner files now include a shared run contract with the canonical result folder, primary L2-X-result.md path, main-doc edit guard, and gate order. Example: funding-drilldown-L2-plans/L2-C-plan.md:6-11; same section is present in A–H.
• C now has a concrete dependency on canonical D/E/F outputs, not loose/alternate paths: L2-C-plan.md:22-25 references L2-D-result.md, L2-E-result.md, and L2-F-result.md.
• C also has a hard start condition: without D/E/F outputs, it may only do Q1/Q5/Q7 and must block final AP dependency mapping, pattern consolidation, AP24–AP26 weak-candidate work, and preventive measures (L2-C-plan.md:73-75). This directly addresses the Oracle concern about silent C drift.
• D/E/F now share the same Input für L2-C table columns:
  • D: L2-D-plan.md:114-121
  • E: L2-E-plan.md:102-109
  • F: L2-F-plan.md:95-102
• G now explicitly requires a ## Input für L2-A section in L2-G-result.md with candidate list, Frascati quick test, hours/scope impact, and clustering implications (L2-G-plan.md:130-136).
• G/H main-document edit risk is partially mitigated: G requires edits to funding-work-packages.md, STRATEGY_public-funding.md, and bsfz-ablehnungsrisiken.md to be proposals or explicitly review-approved (L2-G-plan.md:144-150, L2-G-plan.md:158-161); H says main-doc edits are proposals or require explicit approval (L2-H-plan.md:14-16).
• No unauthorized main-document edits are visible in the inspected diff. git diff --name-only -- docs/1-projects/bsfz-funding showed only L2 plan files; git status additionally shows the untracked funding-drilldown-L2-results/ directory. No changes to STRATEGY_public-funding.md, funding-work-packages.md, bsfz-antrag-vorhaben.md, bsfz-ablehnungsrisiken.md, or funding-application-plan.md were present at review time.

Blocker

• Canonical worker outputs are missing. At review time, funding-drilldown-L2-results/ contained only README.md; none of the expected execution outputs existed: L2-G-result.md, L2-A-result.md, L2-B-result.md, L2-D-result.md, L2-E-result.md, L2-F-result.md, L2-C-result.md, or L2-H-result.md. Therefore the actual drilldown execution cannot yet be validated for result completeness, evidence-backed claims, validation markings, D/E/F handoff table content, or C’s actual use of D/E/F.
• If a worker is currently running, this review is necessarily partial. The available artifacts are planning/run-contract artifacts, not completed drilldown results. Re-review is required after the canonical result files are written.

Note

• The delegated task referenced docs/1-projects/bsfz-funding/plan.md and docs/1-projects/bsfz-funding/progress.md, but both files were absent during inspection. The root-level progress.md exists and was updated separately as requested.
• The D/E/F Input für L2-C table structure is now consistent, but only as a plan requirement. Because L2-D-result.md, L2-E-result.md, and L2-F-result.md do not exist yet, there is no content to verify for AP coverage, percentages, conservative wording, or evidence quality.
• C’s planned input matrix has more columns than the D/E/F handoff table (L2-C-plan.md:23-26 adds Vorhaben, Risiko-Tier, Abhängigkeiten). This is acceptable because D/E/F add dependencies/partial-rejection relevance in prose (L2-D-plan.md:121, L2-E-plan.md:109, L2-F-plan.md:102), but the eventual worker should ensure C can derive those fields without re-reading all AP detail documents.
• Path correctness in the modified plans looks materially improved: old funding-drilldown-L2-X-results.md root artifact names were replaced with canonical funding-drilldown-L2-results/L2-X-result.md references in the inspected diff.
• Conservative/legal validation markings are present at the plan level in places such as C’s legal/tax caveat (L2-C-plan.md:101) and the shared main-doc edit guard (L2-C-plan.md:10 as example). Actual claims still need review once result files exist.