Skip to content

Phase 0 Review — Discovery and Feasibility

Date: 2026-07-28 · Four-review standard applied to Phase 0's own outputs.

1. Engineering review

Phase 0 produced no code, so correctness/type-safety/tests are not applicable. The engineering-relevant outputs — ADRs and repository plan — were checked for internal consistency: the dual-target warehouse (ADR-001) is compatible with the dbt decision (ADR-002) and with the CI-matrix requirement (integration split, R-11); the CLI and quality-gate exit-code requirements from the brief are reflected in backlog items F-04 and C-06. Finding (minor): the Makefile targets promised by the brief (make demo) cannot work before Phase 2 — resolved by requiring stubs that fail honestly with an explanatory message (F-09) rather than pretending success.

2. Data review

  • Lineage: catalogue defines per-source evidence discipline; fact_source_run scheduled in Phase 2 (C-02) — adequate for this phase.
  • Coverage gaps identified and documented rather than papered over: sub-threshold tenders (until S-04 verified), national research funding (S-11/S-12 restricted), posting-level jobs (ADR-008), company completeness (ADR-009).
  • Finding (accepted risk): AGS/NUTS codes in the region config were entered from reference knowledge; a validation task (F-07) and risk entry (R-14) were created, and the config carries a to-validate note. One NUTS error was already caught and corrected during self-check (DE911→DE211 family), which confirms the risk is real.
  • Finding (open): four sources carry pending-local-check because the sandbox fetcher was blocked; these must not silently become "verified" without recorded re-tests (C-03).

3. Business review

  • All 16 user stories name a user and a decision; the three modules map onto the brief's business questions with no orphan features.
  • The strongest early value for User C (analyst) comes from official aggregates (US-05), which are also the most feasible sources — good sequencing luck: the first real data in the system is also the most defensible.
  • Finding (watch): User B's tender value depends materially on S-04 (sub-threshold notices); if it stays blocked, expectations must be reset in the dashboard copy, not just in docs.

4. Honesty review

Checked every Phase 0 document for claims exceeding evidence: - README states "no runnable pipeline yet" prominently. ✅ - Catalogue distinguishes verified-live / verified-exists / pending-local-check; nothing is claimed integrated. ✅ - Licenses for S-01/S-02/S-05 are written as expectations to confirm, not facts. ✅ - The unofficial jobs API is documented with its legal ambiguity stated, and the decision not to use it is itself documented (ADR-008). ✅ - Finding (corrected during review): an early draft of the feasibility text implied the Bavarian GENESIS API exists; the page actually returned 403 to the sandbox and only the download path is confirmed — wording adjusted to pending-local-check throughout. - Residual risk: search-index confirmations (S-02, S-07, S-11, S-13) prove existence, not usability; their catalogue statuses say exactly that.

Gate decision: Phase 0 passes. Proceed to Phase 1 (Foundation) per backlog P0.