Skip to content

QF Solver 0.2.5a0 Owner Review template

Review identity

Field Value
Candidate SHA PENDING
Evidence digest PENDING
Review date PENDING
Owner PENDING
Proposed decision PENDING

Allowed decisions: more_evidence_required, accepted_with_recommendations, accepted_for_bounded_experimental_use, accepted_for_release_0_2_5.

For the original unchanged scope, only accepted_for_release_0_2_5, after G11 passes on the exact candidate SHA, can close G12. If the Owner explicitly approves a narrowed release scope, the decision must instead record OWNER_SCOPE_REVISION = APPROVED and SCOPE_CHANGE = YES; G12 then applies only to the remaining qualified scope and never promotes excluded gates.

The final 0.2.5a0 decision is recorded separately in 0_2_5_owner_scope_revision.md.

Planning approval questions

  1. Approve the MUST/SHOULD/COULD boundary and optional friction policy?
  2. Approve TET4/HEX8 as MUST and TET10/HEX20 as SHOULD for large deformation?
  3. Approve Total Lagrangian StVK as the elastic geometric baseline, subject to audit, or request a different formulation?
  4. Select the bounded J2+geometric model: corotational small-strain J2, a newly planned finite-strain plasticity model, or removal of J2+geometry from MUST?
  5. Approve one Crisfield spherical arc-length method as the initial continuation target?
  6. For frictionless contact, preserve the existing active-set multiplier method as reference, adopt penalty, or plan augmented Lagrangian from the start?
  7. Confirm Full Newton as the only production-qualified nonlinear strategy?
  8. Confirm the 0.2.4 coverage policy as the baseline rather than creating a new percentage target?
  9. Confirm Code_Aster as primary external reference and rules for N/A tools?
  10. Confirm that external numerical correlation is not a physical-validation claim?
  11. Confirm triple coupling and Coulomb friction do not block 0.2.5a0?
  12. Approve the gate dependencies and STOP/GO policy?

Final release questions

  1. Are all mandatory gate records complete on the candidate SHA?
  2. Are objectivity, consistent tangent and transactional-state proofs adequate?
  3. Are buckling and arc-length claims bounded to demonstrated problem classes?
  4. Is contact enforcement sensitivity acceptable and documented?
  5. Are coupled formulations mathematically approved and externally correlated?
  6. Are all 0.2.4 capabilities free of unexplained regression?
  7. Are performance and memory limits honestly stated?
  8. Do public docs avoid claiming unqualified friction/high-order/triple coupling?
  9. Do wheel/sdist/docs/smoke artifacts match the candidate SHA?
  10. Does the Owner authorize an Owner-controlled tag, GitHub Release and PyPI publication as separate operations?

Decision

Owner decision: PENDING

Conditions/recommendations: PENDING

Signature: PENDING