# Layer 4 Adversarial Verification - Complete Example

**Scenario**: E-Commerce Checkout Feature Requirements Review
**Primary Agent**: business-analyst (Riley)
**Reviewer Agent**: business-analyst-reviewer (Scout)
**Wave Transition**: DISCUSS → DESIGN

---

## Phase 1: Artifact Production

### Context

Riley (business-analyst) gathered requirements for an e-commerce checkout feature through stakeholder interviews with:
- Product Owner (Sarah)
- UX Designer (Marcus)
- Payment Gateway Integration Lead (Priya)

### Artifact Created: requirements.md

```markdown
# E-Commerce Checkout Feature Requirements

## Business Context

**Objective**: Streamline checkout process to reduce cart abandonment and increase conversion rate.

**Current State**: Customers report checkout is too complex (8 steps), causing 45% cart abandonment.

**Target State**: Simplify to 3-step checkout, reduce abandonment to 25%.

**Stakeholders**:
- Product Owner: Sarah Chen
- UX Designer: Marcus Rodriguez
- Payment Integration Lead: Priya Sharma

## User Stories

### US-1: Guest Checkout
**As a** customer
**I want to** complete purchase without creating account
**So that** I can quickly buy items without registration overhead

**Acceptance Criteria**:
- AC-1.1: Guest can enter shipping address without login
- AC-1.2: Guest can select payment method
- AC-1.3: Guest receives order confirmation email
- AC-1.4: Guest can optionally create account after purchase

### US-2: Saved Payment Methods
**As a** registered customer
**I want to** use saved payment methods
**So that** I don't re-enter card details every purchase

**Acceptance Criteria**:
- AC-2.1: Customer can save credit card for future use
- AC-2.2: Saved cards display last 4 digits only
- AC-2.3: Customer can delete saved payment methods
- AC-2.4: System should be fast when loading saved cards

### US-3: Order Review
**As a** customer
**I want to** review order before payment
**So that** I can verify items, quantities, and total cost

**Acceptance Criteria**:
- AC-3.1: Display itemized cart with quantities and prices
- AC-3.2: Show shipping cost and estimated delivery date
- AC-3.3: Display total cost including taxes
- AC-3.4: Allow editing quantities or removing items

## Infrastructure Requirements

**Deployment**: System will be deployed to AWS cloud infrastructure

**Payment Integration**: Stripe payment gateway for credit card processing

**Performance**: System should be fast and responsive

**Security**: Payment information must be secure

## Next Steps

Ready for handoff to solution-architect for architecture design.
```

### Layer 1 Unit Test Results

```yaml
layer_1_validation:
  structural_checks:
    has_business_context: PASS
    has_user_stories: PASS
    has_acceptance_criteria: PASS
    stakeholder_section_present: PASS

  quality_checks:
    completeness_score: 0.75  # 3/4 sections (missing non-functional requirements detail)
    acceptance_criteria_count: 11
    testable_criteria_percentage: 64%  # 7/11 criteria testable

  status: PASS (meets minimum threshold 0.70)
```

**Result**: Layer 1 PASSED → Trigger Layer 4 Peer Review

---

## Phase 2: Peer Review

### Reviewer Agent: business-analyst-reviewer (Scout)

Scout loads requirements.md and conducts comprehensive review:

### Review Analysis Process

#### Step 1: Confirmation Bias Detection

Scout identifies:
1. **Technology Bias**: "Deployment to AWS" appears without stakeholder requirement
2. **Payment Gateway Bias**: "Stripe" chosen without evaluation of alternatives
3. **Happy Path Focus**: Limited error scenario documentation

#### Step 2: Completeness Validation

Scout finds gaps:
1. **Performance Requirements Vague**: "System should be fast" - no quantitative threshold
2. **Missing Error Scenarios**: US-1, US-2, US-3 lack error handling
3. **Missing Stakeholder**: No Infrastructure Lead consulted on deployment
4. **Data Retention Missing**: No requirements for order history, data archival
5. **Security Requirements Vague**: "Payment information must be secure" - no specifics

#### Step 3: Clarity Assessment

Scout finds ambiguities:
1. **AC-2.4 Unmeasurable**: "System should be fast" - no latency threshold
2. **AC-3.2 Missing Details**: "Estimated delivery date" - calculation method unspecified
3. **Guest Account Conversion**: US-1 AC-1.4 lacks detail on conversion flow

#### Step 4: Testability Verification

Scout evaluates:
- **Testable (7/11)**: AC-1.1, AC-1.2, AC-1.3, AC-2.1, AC-2.2, AC-2.3, AC-3.1
- **Not Testable (4/11)**: AC-1.4 (vague), AC-2.4 (unmeasurable), AC-3.2 (incomplete), AC-3.3 (missing tax rules)

### Review Output: review_20251006_checkout_requirements.yaml

```yaml
review_id: "rev_20251006_152330_checkout_requirements"
artifact_reviewed: "docs/requirements/requirements.md"
reviewer: "business-analyst-reviewer"
review_date: "2025-10-06T15:23:30Z"

strengths:
  - "Clear business context with quantitative goal (45% → 25% cart abandonment)"
  - "Well-structured user stories with persona-based format (As a... I want... So that...)"
  - "Good stakeholder identification (Product Owner, UX Designer, Payment Lead)"
  - "Strong focus on customer experience (guest checkout, saved payment methods)"

issues_identified:
  confirmation_bias:
    - issue: "Requirements assume AWS cloud deployment without explicit stakeholder requirement or constraint elicitation"
      impact: "May exclude on-premise deployment option, limiting solution space unnecessarily. Infrastructure cost analysis not performed."
      recommendation: "Re-elicit deployment constraints from Infrastructure Lead. Document rationale: regulatory requirements, cost analysis, team expertise. If cloud required, document stakeholder decision. If flexible, state 'Deployment-agnostic, supports cloud and on-premise'."
      severity: "high"
      location: "Section 'Infrastructure Requirements', line 58"

    - issue: "Stripe payment gateway chosen without evaluation of alternatives (PayPal, Square, Adyen)"
      impact: "Technology choice may be suboptimal. Stripe fees, feature set, regional support not compared with alternatives."
      recommendation: "Document payment gateway evaluation: compare Stripe vs PayPal vs Square on criteria (fees, features, PCI compliance, regional support, integration complexity). Document decision rationale in requirements or defer to architecture phase."
      severity: "medium"
      location: "Section 'Infrastructure Requirements', line 60"

  completeness_gaps:
    - issue: "Performance requirement 'System should be fast' is vague and unmeasurable"
      impact: "Cannot validate through testing. Ambiguous for architect and developers. May lead to performance issues in production."
      recommendation: "Quantify performance requirement with stakeholder input. Example: 'Checkout page loads within 2 seconds (p95 latency) under 1000 concurrent users. Payment processing completes within 5 seconds (p95).' Add to non-functional requirements section."
      severity: "critical"
      location: "US-2 AC-2.4, Infrastructure Requirements line 62"

    - issue: "User Story US-1 (Guest Checkout) lacks error handling scenarios"
      impact: "Incomplete test coverage. Production runtime failures for error conditions. Security vulnerability (invalid input handling)."
      recommendation: "Add error scenarios to US-1: AC-1.5 'Invalid shipping address handling (validation, error messages)', AC-1.6 'Payment declined handling (retry, alternative payment)', AC-1.7 'Network timeout during checkout (graceful degradation, order preservation)', AC-1.8 'Duplicate order prevention (idempotency)'."
      severity: "critical"
      location: "User Stories section, US-1"

    - issue: "Missing data retention and privacy requirements"
      impact: "Legal/compliance risk. GDPR, CCPA, PCI-DSS requirements unaddressed. Data archival strategy undefined."
      recommendation: "Add data requirements section: 'Order history retention: 7 years per financial regulations', 'Customer data deletion: GDPR right to be forgotten support', 'Payment data: PCI-DSS compliance, tokenization via Stripe, no raw card storage'."
      severity: "high"
      location: "Missing section after 'Infrastructure Requirements'"

    - issue: "No Infrastructure Lead consulted in stakeholder interviews"
      impact: "Deployment, scalability, operational concerns not represented. Risk of infeasible architecture requirements."
      recommendation: "Interview Infrastructure Lead (John Martinez) on: deployment constraints, scalability requirements, operational monitoring, disaster recovery expectations. Add Infrastructure Lead to stakeholders list."
      severity: "medium"
      location: "Business Context - Stakeholders section"

  clarity_issues:
    - issue: "AC-3.2 'Estimated delivery date' calculation method unspecified"
      impact: "Implementation ambiguity. Different developers may implement differently. Business logic unclear."
      recommendation: "Clarify delivery date calculation: 'Estimated delivery = Order date + Shipping method transit time + 1 business day processing. Display range: 3-5 business days for standard shipping.' Specify handling for holidays, weekends."
      severity: "medium"
      location: "US-3 AC-3.2"

    - issue: "AC-1.4 'Optionally create account after purchase' lacks conversion flow detail"
      impact: "UX flow undefined. Integration with user registration unclear."
      recommendation: "Detail account creation flow: 'After order confirmation, display: Create Account? (benefits: order tracking, saved addresses, faster future checkout). If yes: collect password, create account, link order to account.' Specify: pre-populate email from checkout, password requirements, account activation method."
      severity: "medium"
      location: "US-1 AC-1.4"

  testability_concerns:
    - issue: "AC-3.3 'Display total cost including taxes' lacks tax calculation rules"
      impact: "Cannot test correctness without tax rules. Different tax rates by jurisdiction not specified."
      recommendation: "Specify tax calculation: 'Sales tax calculated based on shipping address jurisdiction using TaxJar API. Display itemized: Subtotal, Shipping, Tax, Total. Tax rate precision: 2 decimal places.' Add test cases for different jurisdictions."
      severity: "high"
      location: "US-3 AC-3.3"

recommendations:
  1: "CRITICAL: Quantify performance requirements with measurable thresholds (latency targets, concurrent user capacity)"
  2: "CRITICAL: Add error handling scenarios to all user stories (payment failures, network timeouts, invalid inputs)"
  3: "HIGH: Re-elicit deployment constraints from Infrastructure Lead - remove AWS assumption or document rationale"
  4: "HIGH: Add data retention, privacy, and compliance requirements (GDPR, CCPA, PCI-DSS)"
  5: "HIGH: Specify tax calculation rules for testability of AC-3.3"
  6: "MEDIUM: Document payment gateway evaluation or defer to architecture phase"
  7: "MEDIUM: Clarify delivery date calculation method and edge cases"
  8: "MEDIUM: Detail guest-to-registered account conversion flow"

approval_status: "rejected_pending_revisions"
critical_issues_count: 2
high_issues_count: 3
iteration_number: 1
next_steps: |
  Address critical and high severity issues before DESIGN wave handoff:
  1. Re-interview stakeholders to quantify performance requirements
  2. Interview Infrastructure Lead on deployment constraints
  3. Add comprehensive error scenarios to all user stories
  4. Consult legal/compliance team on data retention requirements
  5. Specify tax calculation rules with product/finance team

  Estimated revision time: 3-5 business days
  Recommend: Schedule stakeholder workshop to accelerate clarifications
```

---

## Phase 3: Revision

### Riley (business-analyst) Addresses Feedback

#### Action 1: Re-Elicit Performance Requirements

**Interviews**:
- Product Owner (Sarah): "Checkout should feel instant, no waiting"
- UX Designer (Marcus): "Industry standard is 2-3 seconds page load"
- Infrastructure Lead (John Martinez - newly consulted): "We can support 2000 concurrent users peak traffic"

**Revision**:
```markdown
## Non-Functional Requirements

### Performance
- **Checkout Page Load**: Page renders within 2 seconds (p95 latency) under 1000 concurrent users
- **Peak Capacity**: System supports 2000 concurrent users during flash sales
- **Payment Processing**: Payment confirmation within 5 seconds (p95) after submit
- **API Response Time**: Backend APIs respond within 500ms (p95) for checkout operations
```

#### Action 2: Add Error Scenarios

**Revision to US-1**:
```markdown
### US-1: Guest Checkout (REVISED)

**Acceptance Criteria**:
- AC-1.1: Guest can enter shipping address without login
- AC-1.2: Guest can select payment method
- AC-1.3: Guest receives order confirmation email
- AC-1.4: Guest can create account after purchase with pre-populated email
- AC-1.5: **NEW** Invalid shipping address displays validation error with specific correction guidance
- AC-1.6: **NEW** Payment declined shows error message with retry option and alternative payment methods
- AC-1.7: **NEW** Network timeout preserves cart state, allows resume after reconnection
- AC-1.8: **NEW** Duplicate order prevention via idempotent transaction IDs
```

#### Action 3: Address Deployment Assumption

**Interview Infrastructure Lead**:
- John Martinez: "We're committed to AWS for all new applications. Cost analysis completed: AWS 30% cheaper than on-premise for our scale. Team trained on AWS, no on-premise expertise."

**Revision**:
```markdown
## Infrastructure Requirements

### Deployment
**Platform**: AWS cloud infrastructure (decision rationale: cost analysis shows 30% savings vs on-premise, team AWS expertise, scalability requirements exceed on-premise capacity)

**Decision Stakeholder**: Infrastructure Lead John Martinez (2025-10-05)

**Constraints**: Must support auto-scaling for flash sales (0-2000 concurrent users)
```

#### Action 4: Add Data Retention Requirements

**Consult Legal/Compliance Team**:
- Compliance Officer (Lisa Thompson): Provides data retention policy

**Revision**:
```markdown
## Data & Compliance Requirements

### Data Retention
- **Order History**: Retain 7 years per financial record-keeping regulations
- **Customer Data**: Support GDPR right to be forgotten (30-day deletion SLA)
- **Payment Data**: PCI-DSS Level 1 compliance via Stripe tokenization (no raw card storage)

### Privacy
- **Cookie Consent**: Required for analytics tracking
- **Email Opt-In**: Explicit consent for marketing emails (default: unchecked)
- **Data Export**: Customer can request full data export (GDPR compliance)
```

#### Action 5: Specify Tax Calculation

**Consult Finance Team**:
- Finance Lead (Robert Kim): Tax calculation via TaxJar API

**Revision to AC-3.3**:
```markdown
- AC-3.3: Display total cost including taxes calculated via TaxJar API based on shipping address jurisdiction. Display itemized: Subtotal, Shipping, Tax (with rate %), Total. Tax precision: 2 decimal places. Handle tax-exempt jurisdictions (display 'Tax: $0.00').
```

### Revision Notes: revision_notes_v1_to_v2.md

```markdown
# Requirements Revision Notes (v1 → v2)

## Critical Issues Resolved

### 1. Performance Requirements Quantified (Issue #1)
- **Before**: "System should be fast" (vague)
- **After**: Specific latency targets (2s page load p95, 500ms API p95, 5s payment p95)
- **Source**: Stakeholder interviews (Sarah, Marcus, John)

### 2. Error Scenarios Added (Issue #2)
- **Before**: Only happy path documented
- **After**: Added AC-1.5 through AC-1.8 covering validation errors, payment failures, network issues, idempotency
- **Coverage**: All user stories now include error handling

## High Severity Issues Resolved

### 3. Deployment Assumption Documented (Issue #3)
- **Before**: "AWS cloud" without rationale
- **After**: AWS decision documented with cost analysis, stakeholder approval, constraints
- **Decision Maker**: Infrastructure Lead John Martinez

### 4. Data Retention Requirements Added (Issue #4)
- **Before**: Missing compliance requirements
- **After**: GDPR, CCPA, PCI-DSS requirements documented
- **Source**: Compliance Officer Lisa Thompson

### 5. Tax Calculation Specified (Issue #5)
- **Before**: "Including taxes" (implementation ambiguous)
- **After**: TaxJar API integration, jurisdiction-based calculation, itemization format
- **Source**: Finance Lead Robert Kim

## Medium Severity Issues Resolved

### 6. Payment Gateway (Deferred to Architecture)
- **Decision**: Payment gateway evaluation deferred to solution-architect in DESIGN wave
- **Rationale**: Architectural decision requiring technology deep-dive
- **Note**: Stripe mentioned as example, not final choice

### 7. Delivery Date Calculation Clarified
- **After**: "Order date + Transit time + 1 business day processing. Holidays/weekends: use business day calendar."

### 8. Account Conversion Flow Detailed
- **After**: Post-purchase account creation flow specified with UX steps, password requirements

## Stakeholder Additions

- **Added**: Infrastructure Lead John Martinez
- **Reason**: Deployment, scalability, operational requirements consultation
```

---

## Phase 4: Approval Validation

### Scout (business-analyst-reviewer) Reviews Revision

#### Validation Process

**Step 1**: Load revised requirements.md (v2)

**Step 2**: Verify critical issues resolved
- ✅ Performance quantified with specific thresholds
- ✅ Error scenarios comprehensive across all user stories
- ✅ Both critical issues fully addressed

**Step 3**: Verify high issues resolved
- ✅ Deployment rationale documented with stakeholder approval
- ✅ Data retention and compliance requirements added
- ✅ Tax calculation specified with TaxJar integration
- ✅ All 3 high issues addressed

**Step 4**: Check for new issues
- ✅ No new critical or high issues introduced
- ⚠️ Minor: TaxJar API introduces external dependency (note for architecture)

**Step 5**: Approval decision

### Approval Output: review_20251006_checkout_requirements_approved.yaml

```yaml
review_id: "rev_20251006_163045_checkout_requirements_APPROVED"
artifact_reviewed: "docs/requirements/requirements.md (v2)"
reviewer: "business-analyst-reviewer"
review_date: "2025-10-06T16:30:45Z"

revision_validation:
  critical_issues_resolved: 2/2 (100%)
  high_issues_resolved: 3/3 (100%)
  medium_issues_resolved: 3/3 (100%)
  new_issues_introduced: 0 critical, 0 high, 1 low

strengths_of_revision:
  - "Excellent stakeholder re-engagement: Infrastructure Lead, Compliance Officer, Finance Lead consulted"
  - "Performance requirements now quantitative and testable (2s p95, 500ms API, 2000 concurrent users)"
  - "Comprehensive error scenario coverage added to all user stories"
  - "Data retention and compliance requirements thorough (GDPR, CCPA, PCI-DSS)"
  - "Tax calculation specification enables testability"
  - "Deployment rationale documented with cost analysis and stakeholder approval"

remaining_minor_issues:
  - issue: "TaxJar API introduces external dependency not discussed in original requirements"
    impact: "Low - Architecture phase will address API integration strategy, fallback handling"
    recommendation: "Note for solution-architect: Design TaxJar integration with circuit breaker, cache for resilience"
    severity: "low"

approval_status: "approved"
critical_issues_count: 0
high_issues_count: 0
iteration_number: 1
approval_timestamp: "2025-10-06T16:30:45Z"

quality_assessment:
  completeness_score: 0.96  # Significant improvement from 0.75
  clarity_score: 0.94  # Vague requirements now specific
  testability_score: 0.91  # 20/22 criteria testable (up from 7/11)
  stakeholder_alignment_score: 1.00  # All stakeholders consulted

handoff_readiness: "READY"
next_agent: "solution-architect"
wave_transition: "DISCUSS → DESIGN"

reviewer_notes: |
  Exceptional revision quality. Riley addressed all critical and high issues comprehensively.

  Key improvements:
  1. Performance requirements transformed from vague to quantitative
  2. Error scenario coverage now production-ready
  3. Deployment decision documented with stakeholder buy-in
  4. Compliance requirements proactively added
  5. Tax calculation testable and implementable

  Requirements.md (v2) is ready for handoff to solution-architect for architecture design.

  Estimated DESIGN wave duration: 5-7 business days

  Recommendation for solution-architect: Pay special attention to TaxJar integration
  resilience (circuit breaker, caching, fallback to manual tax rate configuration).
```

---

## Phase 5: Handoff

### Handoff Package to solution-architect

```yaml
handoff_package:
  wave_transition: "DISCUSS → DESIGN"
  source_agent: "business-analyst"
  target_agent: "solution-architect"
  handoff_timestamp: "2025-10-06T16:35:00Z"

  deliverables:
    primary_artifact:
      file: "docs/requirements/requirements.md"
      version: "v2 (approved)"
      created: "2025-10-06T09:00:00Z"
      revised: "2025-10-06T15:00:00Z"
      approved: "2025-10-06T16:30:45Z"

    peer_review_approval:
      file: "reviews/rev_20251006_checkout_requirements_APPROVED.yaml"
      reviewer: "business-analyst-reviewer"
      approval_status: "approved"
      iteration_count: 1

    revision_history:
      file: "reviews/revision_notes_v1_to_v2.md"
      changes_summary: "5 critical/high issues resolved, 3 medium issues resolved"

  validation_status:
    layer_1_unit_tests: "passed"
    layer_4_peer_review: "approved"
    critical_issues_resolved: true
    high_issues_resolved: true
    iteration_count: 1
    quality_score: 0.96

  stakeholder_consensus:
    product_owner: "Sarah Chen - approved"
    ux_designer: "Marcus Rodriguez - approved"
    payment_integration_lead: "Priya Sharma - approved"
    infrastructure_lead: "John Martinez - approved (newly consulted)"
    compliance_officer: "Lisa Thompson - approved (newly consulted)"
    finance_lead: "Robert Kim - approved (newly consulted)"

  next_phase_guidance:
    priority_architectural_decisions:
      - "AWS architecture design (auto-scaling for 2000 concurrent users)"
      - "TaxJar API integration with resilience patterns (circuit breaker, cache, fallback)"
      - "Stripe payment gateway integration (PCI-DSS compliance validation)"
      - "Performance architecture (2s p95 page load, 500ms API p95)"
      - "Data retention architecture (7-year order history, GDPR deletion)"

    risk_areas:
      - "Performance SLAs aggressive (2s p95) - load testing critical"
      - "TaxJar dependency - resilience strategy needed"
      - "PCI-DSS compliance - security review required"

    recommended_design_duration: "5-7 business days"

  handoff_acceptance:
    accepted_by: "solution-architect"
    acceptance_timestamp: "2025-10-06T16:40:00Z"
    handoff_status: "ACCEPTED"
```

---

## Metrics Summary

### Review Effectiveness

```yaml
metrics:
  issues_identified: 8 (2 critical, 3 high, 3 medium, 0 low)
  issues_resolved: 8 (100% resolution rate)
  iteration_count: 1 (approved on first revision)
  revision_cycle_time: "4 hours 7 minutes" (15:23 review → 16:30 approval)

  quality_improvement:
    completeness_score: 0.75 → 0.96 (+28%)
    testability_score: 64% → 91% (+27%)
    stakeholder_count: 3 → 6 (+100%)

  bias_detection:
    confirmation_bias_instances: 2 (AWS assumption, Stripe choice)
    happy_path_bias: 1 (missing error scenarios)
    technology_bias: 2 (AWS, Stripe without evaluation)

  handoff_success:
    solution_architect_accepted: true
    re_elicitation_needed: false
    handoff_complete_first_attempt: true
```

### Business Value

- **Defects Prevented**: 8 critical/high issues caught before DESIGN wave
- **Rework Avoided**: solution-architect can proceed without re-eliciting requirements
- **Stakeholder Confidence**: 6 stakeholders aligned, documented consensus
- **Compliance Risk Mitigation**: GDPR, CCPA, PCI-DSS requirements proactively addressed
- **Architecture Foundation**: Clear performance targets, error scenarios, integration points

---

## Lessons Learned

### What Worked Well

1. **Structured Feedback Format**: YAML format enabled clear issue tracking and prioritization
2. **Severity Classification**: Critical/high/medium distinction helped prioritize revisions
3. **Specific Recommendations**: Actionable guidance accelerated issue resolution
4. **Stakeholder Re-Engagement**: Fresh interviews uncovered missing requirements
5. **Single Iteration Success**: Comprehensive initial review enabled first-revision approval

### Improvements for Future Reviews

1. **Proactive Infrastructure Consultation**: Interview Infrastructure Lead in Phase 1 (DISCUSS)
2. **Compliance Checklist**: Standard GDPR/CCPA/PCI-DSS checklist for all payment features
3. **Performance Template**: Pre-defined performance requirement template (latency, throughput, capacity)
4. **Error Scenario Checklist**: Standard error categories (validation, timeout, failure, idempotency)

### Value Demonstration

**Without Layer 4 Review**:
- Vague performance requirements → architecture guesswork → potential performance issues in production
- Missing error scenarios → incomplete acceptance tests → production runtime failures
- Deployment assumption → architecture rework when constraints discovered
- Compliance gaps → legal risk, potential regulatory penalties

**With Layer 4 Review**:
- Quantified requirements → confident architecture design
- Comprehensive error coverage → robust acceptance tests → resilient production system
- Documented decisions → architectural alignment with business constraints
- Proactive compliance → reduced legal risk, audit-ready documentation

**ROI Estimate**: 4 hours review time prevented estimated 3-5 days of rework in DESIGN/DISTILL waves and potential production defects.

---

## Conclusion

This example demonstrates a complete Layer 4 Adversarial Verification cycle:

1. ✅ **Phase 1**: business-analyst produced requirements.md passing Layer 1
2. ✅ **Phase 2**: business-analyst-reviewer identified 8 issues (2 critical, 3 high, 3 medium)
3. ✅ **Phase 3**: business-analyst revised requirements addressing all critical/high issues
4. ✅ **Phase 4**: business-analyst-reviewer approved revision on first iteration
5. ✅ **Phase 5**: Handoff to solution-architect with comprehensive package

**Result**: High-quality, peer-reviewed requirements ready for architecture design, with documented stakeholder consensus and compliance alignment.

**Status**: Layer 4 Adversarial Verification successfully reduced bias, improved quality, and enabled confident handoff to DESIGN wave.
