owner-intent-audit

1# Owner Intent Audit
2 
3The question this review answers is not "is the artifact good" but **"is this what the owner
4meant, and what did the agent leave behind while making it?"** (The owner is whoever owns the
5work and decides what it should be; often that is the user.) An agent can produce a PRD (product
6requirements document), a plan, or a diff that is locally excellent and still specify a different product, carry work
7nobody asked for, or hide the debts agents characteristically create. Reviewing the artifact
8for its own defects — bugs, security holes, silent death — is peer-review's job, not this one;
9the two are run separately and neither substitutes for the other.
10 
11- **Plan mode:** PRDs, designs, specs, task lists, refactor plans, and test plans.
12- **Code mode:** diffs, files, tests, or subsystems substantially written by agents.
13 
14Start with the ordinary user and system flow. Realistic common-path failure outranks exotic
15edge cases.
16 
17## What must be established
18 
19### 0. Did the artifact preserve the product meaning?
20 
21This is not “did every source bullet appear?” A locally plausible artifact can retain the
22same nouns while specifying a different product.
23 
24Determine:
25 
26- who needs the outcome and who decides;
27- what result they actually need;
28- when the behavior applies and when it must not;
29- which exceptions, prohibitions, priorities, and trade-offs matter;
30- how separate answers constrain or explain each other;
31…