Boundary Review Prompts

Page Maps

graph LR
  family["Reproducible Research"]
  program["Deep Dive Make"]
  section["Reference"]
  page["Boundary Review Prompts"]
  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 page when a Make review needs sharper boundary questions rather than more shell output.

Build truth boundaries

• Is this rule expressing a real dependency or only forcing order?
• Does this helper make the graph clearer, or does it hide it behind convenience?
• Would changing the schedule alter artifact meaning?

Public and proof boundaries

• Is this target part of the supported command surface?
• Does this artifact belong to the build, the proof bundle, or the controlled example material?
• Has review evidence leaked into artifact identity or vice versa?

Layer boundaries

• Should this behavior live in the top-level Makefile, a mk/*.mk layer, the proof harness, or a repro?
• Is a helper layer clarifying the graph or hiding it?
• Would moving this logic make the build easier to reason about one file at a time?

Stewardship boundaries

• Which layer should own this change: top-level Makefile, mk/*.mk, tests, or repros?
• Does the review path make the right file discoverable without oral history?
• What would make you reject this change as too clever for the trust it earns?