Review Checklist

Page Maps

graph LR
  family["Reproducible Research"]
  program["Deep Dive DVC"]
  section["Reference"]
  page["Review Checklist"]
  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"]

Use this checklist when reviewing a DVC repository, module exercise, or capstone change. The goal is to leave with explicit keep, change, or reject calls rather than vague trust.

State authority

• Which surface is authoritative for this question: declaration, recorded execution, promotion, or recovery?
• Do dvc.yaml, dvc.lock, and promoted outputs still tell compatible stories?
• Is any visible workspace file being treated as authority when it is only convenience?

Comparability

• Which params and metrics are supposed to remain semantically comparable?
• Has a changed parameter or metric altered meaning without being named as a boundary change?
• Is an experiment being judged against a stable baseline rather than folklore?

Evidence types

• Are you reading declaration, recorded execution, comparison, promotion, experiment, or recovery evidence?
• Does the current evidence type actually settle the question being asked?
• Has any stronger claim been attached to evidence that only supports a narrower boundary?

Promotion and recovery

• Which artifacts are safe for downstream trust?
• Which guarantees depend on the remote rather than the local cache?
• Would another maintainer know what survives local loss and why?

Stewardship

• Which command or bundle should a reviewer trust first?
• Which file would you inspect before approving the next non-trivial change?
• Which ambiguity would you force the author to make explicit before accepting the repository?