---
phase: 01.3-context-lifecycle-coaching-workflow-decomposition
plan: 04
subsystem: documentation
tags: [evaluation, coaching-model, architecture, gsd-patterns]

# Dependency graph
requires:
  - phase: 01.3-context-lifecycle-coaching-workflow-decomposition
    provides: Research findings on context lifecycle, coaching model, and workflow decomposition patterns
provides:
  - Comprehensive eval analysis through coaching and architectural lenses
  - Evidence-based protocol gap identification
  - GSD-lite vs OG GSD architectural comparison
affects: [01.3-05, future-protocol-improvements, eval-methodology]

# Tech tracking
tech-stack:
  added: []
  patterns:
    - "Coaching governance framework (who decides what)"
    - "Dual-lens analysis (coaching violations vs architectural gaps)"
    - "Evidence-based protocol improvement methodology"

key-files:
  created:
    - eval/ANALYSIS.md
  modified: []

key-decisions:
  - "Coaching analysis framework: Separate autonomy violations (overstepped/undershot) from technical errors"
  - "Architectural analysis framework: Map failures to protocol structure gaps, not agent capabilities"
  - "GSD-lite vs OG GSD comparison: Comprehensive architectural differences, not just simplifications"

patterns-established:
  - "Eval analysis pattern: Evidence index linking specific turns to findings"
  - "Governance framework: Decision type, owner, agent role table for clarity"
  - "Gap documentation: Evidence → Failure Mode → Resolution → Status tracking"

# Metrics
duration: 3min
completed: 2026-01-25
---

# Phase 1.3 Plan 04: Eval Analysis Summary

**Analyzed Claude Sonnet and Gemini 3.0 Pro evaluations through coaching governance framework and architectural gap analysis, identifying 5 protocol gaps with evidence-mapped recommendations**

## Performance

- **Duration:** 3 min
- **Started:** 2026-01-25T08:35:37Z
- **Completed:** 2026-01-25T08:38:18Z
- **Tasks:** 1
- **Files modified:** 1

## Accomplishments

- Created comprehensive ANALYSIS.md examining three evaluation sessions (eval_claude.md, eval_gemini.md, another_eval_gsd_gemini.md)
- Coaching analysis: documented autonomy violations with governance framework reference table
- Architectural analysis: identified 5 protocol gaps (monolithic protocol, no anti-hallucination, implicit coaching, missing research mode, no context lifecycle)
- GSD-lite vs OG GSD comparison: comprehensive table covering orchestration, context strategy, workflow scope, protocol location, artifact depth, planning mode, promotion model, model target, tool access, verification, entry points, protocol size

## Task Commits

Each task was committed atomically:

1. **Task 1: Create ANALYSIS.md with coaching and architectural analysis** - `06fb616` (docs)

**Plan metadata:** (pending - will be committed with STATE.md update)

## Files Created/Modified

- `eval/ANALYSIS.md` - Comprehensive evaluation analysis through coaching and architectural lenses, with evidence index mapping specific turns to findings

## Decisions Made

**Decision 1: Coaching governance framework**
- Rationale: Separate autonomy violations (agent overstepped/undershot boundaries) from technical errors to clarify "what went wrong"
- Implementation: Created decision type table (Vision/Outcome = User, Technical detail = Agent, Architectural change = User decision required)
- Impact: Provides clear accountability model for future protocol design

**Decision 2: Dual-lens analysis pattern**
- Rationale: Same failure can be viewed as coaching violation (agent behavior) or architectural gap (protocol structure)
- Implementation: Claude T9 analyzed as both "overstepped autonomy" AND "monolithic protocol enabled skipping"
- Impact: Addresses both agent behavior AND protocol design in recommendations

**Decision 3: Evidence-based gap identification**
- Rationale: Protocol improvements must be grounded in specific eval failures, not theoretical concerns
- Implementation: Each gap links to specific turn references (T9, T78, T4-T6, T9-T16) with failure mode description
- Impact: Prevents speculative protocol changes, ensures recommendations solve observed problems

**Decision 4: GSD-lite architectural identity**
- Rationale: GSD-lite is NOT simplified GSD - it's a fundamentally different architecture for different constraints
- Implementation: Comparison table covers 12 dimensions with rationale column explaining WHY differences exist
- Impact: Clarifies design philosophy, helps users choose correct framework for their scenario

## Deviations from Plan

None - plan executed exactly as written.

## Issues Encountered

None.

## User Setup Required

None - no external service configuration required.

## Next Phase Readiness

**Ready for Plan 05 (Decompose PROTOCOL.md into workflows):**
- ANALYSIS.md provides evidence for decomposition decisions
- Architectural gaps identified with specific resolution guidance
- Coaching governance framework ready to embed in each workflow
- Context lifecycle pattern documented for checkpoint.md workflow

**Blockers/Concerns:**
None. Analysis complete with actionable recommendations.

---
*Phase: 01.3-context-lifecycle-coaching-workflow-decomposition*
*Completed: 2026-01-25*
