5d-verify

# VERIFY Phase

Verify implementation at multiple levels and route failures appropriately.

## Verification Layers

### Layer 1: Technical Correctness

- Does it build/compile without errors?
- Do tests pass?
- Does linting pass?
- Does it run without crashing?

**Failure routing:** Return to BUILD

### Layer 2: Spec Fidelity

- Does implementation match spec interfaces?
- Are all spec requirements addressed?
- Do outputs match spec definitions?

**Failure routing:** Return to BUILD (if code error) or SPEC (if spec error)

### Layer 3: Plan Validity

- Does this solve the problem stated in the plan?
- Does user testing confirm expected behavior?
- Are the original assumptions holding?

**Failure routing:** Return to PLAN or SPAR

### Layer 4: Epistemic Update (Depth + Time)

- Did we learn anything that changes our assumptions?
- Are there new risks or opportunities?
- Should the spec be updated for future work?
- What patterns emerged that apply to future projects?
- What should we "transcend and include" going forward?

**Failure routing:** Document for REFLECT phase

### Layer 5: Multi-Dimensional Check

**Quadrant coverage:**
- Individual Outer: Are artifacts complete and correct?
- Individual Inner: Is understanding documented?
- Collective Outer: Are system integrations verified?
- Collective Inner: Is stakeholder alignment confirmed?

**Height (Skill Dependencies):**
- Did capability gaps cause failures?
- What skills were developed during implementation?
- What remains blocked by missing capabilities?

**Identity Trap:**
- Are we declaring success to avoid examining failures?
- Are failures being minimized because they threaten assumptions?
- What are we not looking at?

## Verification Process

1. Run automated checks (build, lint, test)
2. Manual spec comparison
3. User acceptance testing (if applicable)
4. Collect all failures and discoveries

## Failure Diagnosis

When something fails, identify which layer:

| Symptom | Likely Layer | Action |
|---------