---
phase: 10
phase_name: "Documentation and Cohesion"
project: "PaperForge Lite"
generated: "2026-05-02"
counts:
  decisions: 6
  lessons: 3
  patterns: 1
  surprises: 1
missing_artifacts:
  - "10-VERIFICATION.md"
  - "10-UAT.md"
---

## Decisions

### ADR records in ARCHITECTURE.md
10 Architecture Decision Records (ADR-001 through ADR-010) covering Phases 1-9 were documented in a single `docs/ARCHITECTURE.md` file, providing a unified reference for maintainers.

**Rationale/Context:** Previous architectural decisions were scattered across phase context files. Consolidating them into one document with ADR format makes the codebase self-documenting for new contributors.

**Source:** 10-PLAN.md (Task 1)

---

### Unified command documentation template
All 5 `command/pf-*.md` files were standardized with a common structure: Purpose, CLI Equivalent, Prerequisites, Arguments, Example, Output, Error Handling, Platform Notes.

**Rationale/Context:** Prior command docs had inconsistent structure. The unified template ensures every command doc covers the same categories of information, reducing ambiguity.

**Source:** 10-PLAN.md (Task 4)

---

### Agent-to-CLI mapping matrix in COMMANDS.md
A master command reference was created (`docs/COMMANDS.md`) mapping all 5 agent commands (`/pf-deep`, `/pf-paper`, `/pf-ocr`, `/pf-sync`, `/pf-status`) to their CLI equivalents with explicit requirements.

**Rationale/Context:** Users and agents needed a quick way to understand which CLI command underlies each agent command and what prerequisites are needed.

**Source:** 10-PLAN.md (Task 3)

---

### Consistency audit as automated script
`scripts/consistency_audit.py` checks 4 hard constraints: no old command names, no `paperforge_lite` in Python code, no dead markdown links, and valid command doc structure.

**Rationale/Context:** Manual consistency review is error-prone. An automated script can be run in CI to enforce hard constraints on every change.

**Source:** 10-PLAN.md (Task 5)

---

### Manual checklist for soft constraints
`docs/CONSISTENCY-CHECKLIST.md` covers terminology, branding, style, cross-references, version numbers, command examples, and agent command naming.

**Rationale/Context:** Some consistency criteria (branding, terminology) cannot be automatically verified. A structured checklist provides a repeatable human review process.

**Source:** 10-PLAN.md (Task 6)

---

### Path normalization fix for bare BBT paths
Added `storage:` prefix normalization in `load_export_rows()` to handle BBT-exported bare `KEY/KEY.pdf` paths that were not being converted to the `storage:` format.

**Rationale/Context:** Discovered during verification (Task 7) — the PDF resolver was failing on bare relative paths from BBT export. Fixing it ensured backward compatibility with existing exports.

**Source:** 10-SUMMARY.md (Deviation Log, Item 2)

---

## Lessons

### Auto-fixed issues during verification catch latent bugs
Task 7 verification discovered and fixed 3 issues not in the plan: missing `pipeline/__init__.py` files (collection errors), bare path normalization (PDF resolver failure), and outdated test assertion (Phase 9 command unification changed "doctor" to "diagnose").

**Rationale/Context:** The verification step in Task 7 acted as a safety net, catching issues that were not identified during planning. This suggests that running the full test suite at phase boundaries is essential even for documentation-focused phases.

**Source:** 10-SUMMARY.md (Deviation Log)

---

### Baseline test count is not the final test count
Started with 155 passed / 2 skipped / 2 pre-existing failures as baseline. Verification revealed 6 new empty package dirs that caused collection errors. After fixes, final result: 178 passed / 2 skipped / 0 failed — a significant improvement from baseline.

**Rationale/Context:** The verification process itself improved the codebase by discovering and fixing issues, demonstrating that phase-end verification adds value beyond confirmation.

**Source:** 10-SUMMARY.md (Verification Results)

---

### Consistency audit confirmed Phase 9 completeness
The audit found 0 occurrences of old command names and 0 references to `paperforge_lite` in Python code, confirming that Phase 9's command unification was fully and correctly executed.

**Rationale/Context:** This cross-phase validation demonstrates the value of automated consistency checks for verifying that earlier phases' work was complete.

**Source:** 10-SUMMARY.md (Verification Results)

---

## Patterns

### Verification-driven bug discovery
Running the test suite and consistency audit at phase completion (Task 7) catches both regression bugs and latent pre-existing issues. This doubles as both a quality gate and a cleanup mechanism.

**Rationale/Context:** Even a documentation-focused phase (Phase 10) uncovered 3 functional bugs during verification. The pattern of "test at phase boundaries" should be standard for all phases.

**Source:** 10-PLAN.md (Task 7), 10-SUMMARY.md (Deviation Log)

---

## Surprises

### Test suite discovered a real path normalization bug during a documentation phase
The pre-existing test suite caught a genuine functional bug (bare BBT paths not normalized to `storage:` prefix) during what was planned as a documentation-and-cohesion phase. This bug was causing PDF resolver failures in real usage.

**Rationale/Context:** This was entirely unexpected — the phase was focused on documentation, not functional changes. The test suite's discovery of a live bug underscores the importance of running tests even in non-functional phases.

**Source:** 10-SUMMARY.md (Deviation Log, Item 2)
