id: review-kit/alignment/workflow
title: Canon Consumer Alignment Review Workflow
status: candidate
created_by_workplan: ITC-WP-0011
workflow_goal: Turn an unknown or partially understood repository into a source-linked canon alignment assessment and repo-local workplan proposal.
phases:
  - id: intake
    title: Repository Intake
    purpose: Capture what the repository appears to provide before selecting canon surfaces.
    inputs:
      - README, INTENT, SCOPE, architecture docs, package manifests, tests, API specs, deployment files, and existing workplans.
    questions:
      - What producer intent does the repository declare?
      - What current scope is evidenced by code, docs, tests, and deployment artifacts?
      - Who are the likely consumers and what purposes do they bring?
      - Which parts are owned by the repository and which are dependencies, adapters, generated assets, or examples?
    outputs:
      - repository_context
      - initial_intent_scope_purpose_notes
      - evidence_inventory
  - id: surface-selection
    title: Canon Surface Selection
    purpose: Choose the smallest useful set of models, standards, profiles, benchmarks, and evaluation packs for the review.
    inputs:
      - repository_context
      - model_selection_guide
      - retrieval_index
    questions:
      - Which domain models are directly relevant?
      - Which standards or benchmarks should stress-test the review?
      - Which existing consumer packs already match the repository shape?
    outputs:
      - selected_canon_surfaces
      - surface_selection_rationale
  - id: mapping
    title: Repository To Canon Mapping
    purpose: Map observed repository concepts, entities, edges, APIs, policies, tasks, and artifacts to canon concepts.
    inputs:
      - selected_canon_surfaces
      - evidence_inventory
    questions:
      - Which repository concepts map directly?
      - Which concepts are partial fits or conflicts?
      - Which mappings require stronger evidence?
      - Which native terms must be preserved to avoid semantic flattening?
    outputs:
      - mapping_findings
      - evidence_links
      - unresolved_questions
  - id: scoring
    title: Fit Scorecard
    purpose: Score alignment consistently enough to compare reviews and prioritize follow-up.
    inputs:
      - mapping_findings
      - scorecard
    questions:
      - Where is fit strong enough to rely on?
      - Which gaps block integration or reuse?
      - Which conflicts risk wrong interpretation?
      - Which findings are urgent, useful, or merely interesting?
    outputs:
      - scorecard_results
      - prioritized_gaps
      - risk_notes
  - id: workplan-proposal
    title: Consumer Workplan Proposal
    purpose: Convert findings into repo-local workplans without moving consumer implementation work into the canon repo.
    inputs:
      - scorecard_results
      - consumer_workplan_template
    questions:
      - What should the consumer repo change first?
      - What validation should prove the alignment improved?
      - Which tasks are refactors, documentation, schema changes, data migration, or governance review?
    outputs:
      - recommended_workplans
      - proposed_tasks
      - validation_plan
  - id: canon-feedback
    title: Canon Feedback And Pressure
    purpose: Capture where the review suggests canon improvements without altering models or standards silently.
    inputs:
      - mapping_findings
      - unresolved_questions
      - scorecard_results
    questions:
      - Which gaps indicate the canon needs a new concept, profile, pattern, schema, or benchmark?
      - Which findings should stay consumer-specific?
      - Which proposed canon changes need a separate workplan?
    outputs:
      - canon_feedback
      - proposed_canon_workplans
      - open_questions
minimum_review_packet:
  - repository_context
  - selected_canon_surfaces
  - mapping_findings
  - scorecard_results
  - recommended_workplans
  - canon_feedback