Repository Review Without Wishful Thinking¶

Page Maps¶

graph LR
  family["Reproducible Research"]
  program["Deep Dive DVC"]
  section["Migration Governance Dvc Boundaries"]
  page["Repository Review Without Wishful Thinking"]
  capstone["Capstone evidence"]

  family --> program --> section --> page
  page -.applies in.-> capstone

flowchart LR
  orient["Orient on the page map"] --> read["Read the main claim and examples"]
  read --> inspect["Inspect the related code, proof, or capstone surface"]
  inspect --> verify["Run or review the verification path"]
  verify --> apply["Apply the idea back to the module and capstone"]

A mature DVC review starts with evidence.

Do not begin by asking whether the repository "looks organized." Ask whether it can still explain and restore the state it claims.

Review the state story first¶

A strong review asks:

what state is authoritative?
what state is only local convenience?
which data and output identities are recorded?
which pipeline stages have truthful dependencies?
which parameters and metrics support comparison?
which release surface is safe for consumers?
which recovery route has been rehearsed?

This order prevents style preferences from hiding correctness gaps.

Useful pairings:

Surface	Review beside
`dvc.yaml`	`dvc.lock` and command code
`params.yaml`	metrics and experiment notes
metric files	metric definitions and baseline comparison
`publish/v1/`	manifest, params, metrics, review note
remote config	recovery route and retention policy
CI route	lock evidence and remote pull behavior

The review question is not "does this file exist?" It is "does this file agree with the rest of the state story?"

Write findings as contracts¶

Weak finding:

The DVC setup is messy.

Stronger finding:

The release bundle contains metrics and parameters, but no manifest names the supported files. Downstream consumers must infer the release surface from directory contents.

Weak:

Recovery needs improvement.

Stronger:

The current documentation claims recovery is supported, but no clean-checkout route verifies that promoted artifacts can be restored from the shared remote.

Specific findings are repairable.

A final review shape¶

A useful final course review can use five sections:

identity and state layers
pipeline and experiment truth
metrics, promotion, and release surfaces
remote, retention, and recovery
tool-boundary recommendations

Each section should include evidence, risk, and a repair recommendation.

Review checkpoint¶

You understand this core when you can:

review by evidence instead of repository appearance
read DVC files as related state claims
write findings as broken or underspecified contracts
separate correctness risks from style preferences
produce a review another maintainer can act on

Stewardship starts when review becomes specific enough to repair.