Quality

Open this section when you need to decide whether claims, checks, and reasoning artifacts are proven strongly enough for reviewers and downstream packages to trust.

Trust Model

flowchart LR
    strategy["test strategy"]
    invariants["reasoning invariants"]
    validation["change validation"]
    limits["limitations and risk"]
    trust["trust decision"]

    strategy --> invariants --> validation --> limits --> trust

Reason quality has to justify interpretation, not only execution. A reviewer should be able to see how claim behavior is tested, what must not drift in the checks and artifacts, and where the package still names limits instead of pretending that explanation alone is proof.

Read These First

• open Test Strategy first when you need the broad proof shape behind reasoning behavior
• open Invariants when the question is what must not drift across claim and verification behavior
• open Change Validation when you need the minimum proof for a safe reasoning change

Trust Risk

The main quality risk here is looking explainable on paper while the actual reasoning proof path is too weak to defend under review.

First Proof Check

• tests and package-local validation surfaces for executable evidence
• invariants, limitations, and risk pages for the trust boundaries that still matter after green checks
• release notes and caller-facing docs when the change alters what readers may safely assume

Pages In This Section

• Test Strategy
• Invariants
• Review Checklist
• Documentation Standards
• Definition of Done
• Dependency Governance
• Change Validation
• Known Limitations
• Risk Register

Leave This Section When

• leave for Foundation when the doubt is really about package ownership rather than proof
• leave for Interfaces when the question is what the contract is rather than whether it is defended
• leave for Operations when the package already seems trustworthy and the real issue is how to run it repeatably

Design Pressure

If reasoning trust is reduced to formal checks without explaining what they protect, the section becomes shallow again. Proof here has to connect behavior, verification, and explicit limits.