TheLastGarden/.planning/phases/01-foundations-and-doctrine/01-06-doctrine-docs-PLAN.md

---
phase: 01
plan: 06
type: execute
wave: 2
depends_on: [01-01]
files_modified:
  - .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md
  - .planning/season-7-end-state.md
  - scripts/doctrine.test.ts
autonomous: true
requirements: [PIPE-05, UX-13, STRY-09]
must_haves:
  truths:
    - "`.planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md` exists and consolidates banned-pattern enumeration from PROJECT.md, REQUIREMENTS.md UX-13, CLAUDE.md Hard Thematic Constraints, RESEARCH PITFALLS.md #9 (PIPE-05 + UX-13)"
    - "`.planning/season-7-end-state.md` exists and answers principle-level the three questions per CONTEXT D-08: (a) what *rest state* means, (b) what the finite Roothold ceiling is tied to, (c) the coda's tonal register (PIPE-05)"
    - "Both docs are principle-level consolidations (not new design and not treatment-level) per CONTEXT D-07 + D-08"
    - "A Vitest doc-lint test asserts both docs exist with their required H2 sections (per RESEARCH § Validation Architecture PIPE-05 row)"
    - "Neither doc adds a lint rule on UX strings (per CONTEXT D-07 — explicitly rejected)"
  artifacts:
    - path: .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md
      provides: "Banned-pattern enumeration + allowed-engagement list + 3-question review checklist + source-document citations (per RESEARCH outline)"
      contains: "## Banned Mechanics"
    - path: .planning/season-7-end-state.md
      provides: "Principle-level answers to (a) rest state, (b) finite Roothold ceiling tie, (c) tonal register; explicit list of what this doc is NOT (per RESEARCH outline + CONTEXT D-08)"
      contains: "## What does *rest state* mean?"
    - path: scripts/doctrine.test.ts
      provides: "Vitest test asserting both docs exist and contain their required H2 sections"
  key_links:
    - from: .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md
      to: ["PROJECT.md Out of Scope", "REQUIREMENTS.md UX-13", "CLAUDE.md Hard Thematic Constraints", ".planning/research/PITFALLS.md #9"]
      via: "Source Documents section enumerates the 4 references explicitly"
      pattern: "PROJECT.md.*REQUIREMENTS.md.*CLAUDE.md.*PITFALLS.md"
    - from: .planning/season-7-end-state.md
      to: ["PROJECT.md core value", "REQUIREMENTS.md SEAS-04, SEAS-09, SEAS-10, STRY-08", "ROADMAP.md Phase 7", ".planning/research/PITFALLS.md #1"]
      via: "Source Documents section enumerates the 4 references explicitly"
      pattern: "SEAS-04.*SEAS-09.*SEAS-10.*STRY-08"
---

<objective>
Author the two Phase-1 doctrine documents per CONTEXT D-07 + D-08 + D-09. Both live under `.planning/` (not `docs/` per D-09). Both are *consolidation documents* of constraints already scattered across project artifacts — the planner is **not** doing new design work, only collecting and organizing what's already locked elsewhere. Per CONTEXT D-07, anti-FOMO is enforced by review (not lint); per D-08, Season 7 end-state is principle-level (not treatment text). RESEARCH § "Doctrine doc outline — anti-fomo-doctrine.md" and § "Doctrine doc outline — season-7-end-state.md" provide concrete templates that this plan ships verbatim with project-specific details filled in.

Ship a single Vitest doc-lint test (`scripts/doctrine.test.ts`) that asserts both files exist and each contains its required H2 sections — proving PIPE-05 is automatable and giving Plan 07's CI workflow something to verify. Per CONTEXT D-07: NO lint rule on UX strings.

Purpose: PROJECT.md commits to the 7-Season scope; PITFALLS.md #1 names "the story ends but the loop doesn't" as the single most dangerous pitfall; CONTEXT D-08 demands the answer ship before any economy code (Phase 2) lands. PIPE-05 + UX-13 require these docs in the repo before Phase 2 begins. The docs become referenced artifacts at every UX/monetization/economy review going forward.

Output: Two principle-level doctrine markdown files in `.planning/` plus one Vitest doc-lint test enforcing their structural integrity.
</objective>

<execution_context>
@$HOME/.claude/get-shit-done/workflows/execute-plan.md
@$HOME/.claude/get-shit-done/templates/summary.md
</execution_context>

<context>
@.planning/PROJECT.md
@.planning/ROADMAP.md
@.planning/REQUIREMENTS.md
@.planning/STATE.md
@.planning/phases/01-foundations-and-doctrine/01-CONTEXT.md
@.planning/phases/01-foundations-and-doctrine/01-RESEARCH.md
@.planning/phases/01-foundations-and-doctrine/01-01-SUMMARY.md
@.planning/research/PITFALLS.md
@CLAUDE.md
</context>

<tasks>

<task type="auto">
  <name>Task 1: Author `.planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md` (consolidation per CONTEXT D-07 + RESEARCH outline)</name>
  <files>
    .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md
  </files>
  <read_first>
    - .planning/phases/01-foundations-and-doctrine/01-RESEARCH.md § "Doctrine doc outline — anti-fomo-doctrine.md" (the verbatim template structure)
    - .planning/phases/01-foundations-and-doctrine/01-CONTEXT.md (D-07 — consolidation document, no lint rule on UX strings, enforced by review)
    - .planning/PROJECT.md § "Out of Scope" (gacha, lootboxes, daily login bonuses, streaks, etc. — the source list of banned patterns)
    - .planning/REQUIREMENTS.md UX-13 + § "Out of Scope" table (rows: gacha, lootboxes, narrative gating, Season skipping, daily login, streaks, limited-time, energy/stamina, rewarded ads, push spam, lore codex, generic flora, combat, multiplayer, voiced dialogue, always-online, named Keeper, hint system, time-skip purchases, Unity engines, generic cosmetics, random-drop cosmetics, mobile-style nag UX)
    - CLAUDE.md "Hard Thematic Constraints (Out of Scope by Design)" — the 13 enumerated exclusions
    - .planning/research/PITFALLS.md § "Pitfall 9: FOMO/Nag Mechanics Violate Cozy Tone" (the rationale + warning signs + how-to-avoid)
  </read_first>
  <action>
    Write `.planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md` using the Write tool. Follow the RESEARCH § "Doctrine doc outline — anti-fomo-doctrine.md" template verbatim, but populate every banned-pattern row from the four source documents (PROJECT.md, REQUIREMENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, PITFALLS.md #9). Per CONTEXT D-07, this is a *consolidation* — do not invent new constraints, do not relitigate existing ones.

    **The document must contain these EXACT H2 sections** (the doc-lint test in Task 2 will assert each one exists):
    1. `## Banned Mechanics`
    2. `## Allowed Engagement`
    3. `## Review Checklist`
    4. `## Source Documents`

    **Document content:**

    ```markdown
    # Anti-FOMO Doctrine

    *Phase 1 deliverable per PIPE-05 + UX-13. Consolidated from PROJECT.md, REQUIREMENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, and .planning/research/PITFALLS.md #9.*

    This document is referenced at every UX, monetization, and copy review going
    forward. It enumerates mechanics this game does not use, with the reason for
    each, so the answer to a "should we add X?" question is in writing rather
    than relitigated.

    Per CONTEXT D-07: this doctrine is enforced by **review**, not by lint rules
    on UX strings. The reviewer (you, at every UX/monetization/copy decision)
    consults this list and rejects or rewrites any change that violates it.

    ## Banned Mechanics

    | Mechanic | Why Banned |
    |----------|------------|
    | Gacha mechanics | Directly contradicts the game's thematic argument that complex things cannot be reduced to simple transactions. (PROJECT.md, REQUIREMENTS.md Out of Scope, CLAUDE.md) |
    | Lootboxes | Same reason as gacha — undermines the story's monetization-as-meaning argument. |
    | Narrative gating behind purchase | The story IS the product; story content is never paid. |
    | Random-drop monetization | All cosmetics must be deterministic catalog purchases. |
    | Daily login bonuses | Presence is not a debt the game collects. |
    | Login streaks | Skipping a day is allowed, even encouraged. |
    | Limited-time / time-limited content | The game's premise is *what persists*. |
    | Energy / stamina systems | Anti-cozy gating that interrupts contemplative play. |
    | Rewarded ads | Anti-cozy; tonally incoherent with a contemplative grief-narrative. |
    | Re-engagement push notifications | Memory Storm opt-in is the **only** allowed notification class. |
    | Loss-aversion copy ("you'll lose your X") | Tonally incompatible with cozy/contemplative. |
    | Visible countdown timers in core UI | The cello is the timer. The seasons are the timer. Not a digit. |
    | "Don't miss out" / "limited time" / "only X hours left" copy | Bannable phrases at copy review. |
    | Season *skipping* (vs. Season *acceleration*) | Players must never miss authored story beats; acceleration is allowed, skipping is forbidden. |
    | Time-skip purchases that bypass real-time | Real-time IS the metaphor for memory; skip-time would violate mechanic-as-metaphor doctrine. |
    | Hint system / objective tracker | Discovery-driven progression (A Dark Room rule); explicit objectives violate the tone. |
    | Mobile-style nag UX | Cozy audience expects respect; nag patterns will tank reviews. |

    ## Allowed Engagement

    The following engagement affordances are explicitly **allowed** because they respect
    presence rather than demand it:

    - **Memory Storm opt-in notifications** — the single allowed notification class.
      Player must explicitly opt in. Never daily, never marketing, never streak-based.
    - **"While you were away" letter on return** — written in Lura's voice, never a stat dump
      (UX-02). Describes what bloomed, what the wind brought; never "fragments per hour."
    - **Tab-title bloom indicator** when a fragment is ready (UX-09, Phase 8) — passive
      surfacing, no notification.
    - **Save-export reminder after Season transitions** — relationship-saving, not nag.

    ## Review Checklist

    When reviewing any UX, copy, monetization, or feature change, ask three questions:

    1. **Does this create urgency around presence rather than around content?** If yes → reject.
    2. **Does this frame absence as loss?** If yes → rewrite or reject.
    3. **Would removing this from the game make it less *cozy*?** If no → reconsider whether the change belongs.

    Additional sanity checks for monetization specifically:

    - Does this mechanic gate any story content? → reject (PROJECT.md hard constraint).
    - Is this random-drop / gacha / lootbox shaped? → reject.
    - Is this a "limited-time" anything? → reject.

    ## Source Documents

    This doctrine consolidates constraints already locked in:

    - **PROJECT.md** § "Out of Scope" — anti-features (gacha, lootboxes, narrative gating, Season skipping, generic flora, combat, multiplayer, voiced dialogue, named Keeper, generic cosmetics)
    - **REQUIREMENTS.md** UX-13 + § "Out of Scope" table — 24 explicit exclusions
    - **CLAUDE.md** § "Hard Thematic Constraints (Out of Scope by Design)" — 13 thematic exclusions, no FOMO push notifications, no daily login bonuses, no streaks, no limited-time, no energy/stamina
    - **.planning/research/PITFALLS.md** § "Pitfall 9: FOMO/Nag Mechanics Violate Cozy Tone" — rationale + warning signs

    ---

    *Authored: Phase 1 deliverable. Updates: append-only — entries can be added (new
    banned patterns identified) but never removed without surfacing the change for review.*
    ```

    Per CONTEXT D-07: do NOT add a lint rule for UX strings; do NOT add CI enforcement; the document is enforced by human review at the listed decision points.

    The doctrine doc length is appropriate (~70 lines markdown including tables) — principle-level, not exhaustive prose.

    Commit `docs(01-06): author anti-FOMO doctrine consolidating PROJECT/REQUIREMENTS/CLAUDE/PITFALLS constraints (PIPE-05, UX-13)`.
  </action>
  <verify>
    <automated>test -f .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md &amp;&amp; grep -q "## Banned Mechanics" .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md &amp;&amp; grep -q "## Allowed Engagement" .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md &amp;&amp; grep -q "## Review Checklist" .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md &amp;&amp; grep -q "## Source Documents" .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md</automated>
  </verify>
  <acceptance_criteria>
    - File exists at `.planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md` (NOT `docs/`, per CONTEXT D-09) — verify with `test -f .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md && ! test -f docs/anti-fomo-doctrine.md`.
    - Contains all 4 required H2 sections — verify with `grep -cE "^## (Banned Mechanics|Allowed Engagement|Review Checklist|Source Documents)" .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md` returns 4.
    - The Banned Mechanics table contains at least 15 banned-pattern rows — verify with `awk '/^## Banned Mechanics/,/^## /{print}' .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md | grep -cE "^\\| (Gacha|Lootboxes|Narrative gating|Daily login|Login streaks|Limited-time|Energy|Rewarded ads|Re-engagement|Loss-aversion|Visible countdown|Season skipping|Time-skip|Hint system|Mobile-style)" | wc -l` returns at least 15. (Tolerate count-by-row variation; the test file in Task 2 will assert exact patterns.)
    - The Source Documents section enumerates all 4 sources — verify with `grep -cE "(PROJECT\\.md|REQUIREMENTS\\.md|CLAUDE\\.md|PITFALLS\\.md)" .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md` returns at least 4.
    - The Review Checklist section asks 3 questions — verify with `awk '/^## Review Checklist/,/^## /{print}' .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md | grep -cE "^[0-9]\\." | head -1` returns at least 3.
    - No lint rule is mentioned (per CONTEXT D-07 explicit rejection) — verify with `! grep -qE "lint rule|eslint rule" .planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md`.
  </acceptance_criteria>
  <done>
    `.planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md` authored as a principle-level consolidation of constraints from PROJECT/REQUIREMENTS/CLAUDE/PITFALLS; contains the 4 required H2 sections; enumerates ≥15 banned patterns + 3 review-checklist questions + 4 source documents; no lint-rule reference (per CONTEXT D-07); commit landed.
  </done>
</task>

<task type="auto">
  <name>Task 2: Author `.planning/season-7-end-state.md` (principle-level per CONTEXT D-08 + RESEARCH outline) + Vitest doc-lint test</name>
  <files>
    .planning/season-7-end-state.md,
    scripts/doctrine.test.ts
  </files>
  <read_first>
    - .planning/phases/01-foundations-and-doctrine/01-RESEARCH.md § "Doctrine doc outline — season-7-end-state.md" (the verbatim template, including the explicit "What this document is NOT" section)
    - .planning/phases/01-foundations-and-doctrine/01-CONTEXT.md (D-08 — principle-level NOT treatment-level; answers (a) rest state, (b) Roothold ceiling, (c) tonal register; D-09 — lives in `.planning/`)
    - .planning/PROJECT.md § "Core Value" — "what survives is what you understood"; § "Out of Scope" — Season skipping forbidden, no New Game+
    - .planning/REQUIREMENTS.md SEAS-04 (finite ceiling), SEAS-09 (Season 7 long late-game), SEAS-10 (rest state, not infinite tiers), STRY-08 (binary choice + "The garden persists.")
    - .planning/ROADMAP.md § "Phase 7: Season 7 (Return) & Final Choice" — the 4 success criteria
    - .planning/research/PITFALLS.md § "Pitfall 1: The Story Ends but the Idle Loop Doesn't" — the rationale this doc directly addresses
  </read_first>
  <action>
    **Step 1 — Write `.planning/season-7-end-state.md`** using the Write tool, following RESEARCH § "Doctrine doc outline — season-7-end-state.md" verbatim, with content adapted to The Last Garden specifically.

    **The document must contain these EXACT H2 sections** (the doc-lint test will assert each):
    1. `## What does *rest state* mean?`
    2. `## What is the finite Roothold ceiling tied to?`
    3. `## What tonal register does the coda live in?`
    4. `## What this document is NOT`
    5. `## Source Documents`

    **Document content:**

    ```markdown
    # Season 7 End-State Design (Principle-Level)

    *Phase 1 deliverable per PIPE-05 + CONTEXT D-08. Principle-level only — treatment text is authored in Phase 7.*

    This document answers the question that ends ROADMAP.md Phase 7's success criterion #4:

    > *"the finite Roothold ceiling from Phase 4 has held the line, and the game has ended
    > the way A Dark Room and Universal Paperclips ended."*

    Per .planning/research/PITFALLS.md #1, "the story ends but the idle loop doesn't"
    is the single most dangerous structural pitfall for this project. This document
    is the canonical answer the project has *before* any economy code lands in Phase 2.

    Per CONTEXT D-08: this is **principle-level**, not treatment-level. It defines the
    contract Phase 7's authoring obeys, not the text of any final scene.

    ## What does *rest state* mean?

    The rest state is the post-credits configuration the player can return to indefinitely
    without grinding. Concretely:

    - **No new fragments are added to the pool.** All authored content has been delivered.
      Harvests after the final binary choice yield re-readable previously-collected
      fragments — nothing new.
    - **No new currency tiers unlock.** Roothold has reached its finite ceiling (see below)
      and stays there. There is no "Season 8" hidden behind a number.
    - **The garden continues to render and respond to clicks.** Plants can still be
      planted. Seasons (now in Return register) continue to crossfade. The world is
      not frozen — it is *finished*.
    - **The Pale has receded.** The Heartsoil expands beyond the garden walls. Lura's
      arc has resolved. The Archivist's question has been answered (in the player's
      Season 7 binary choice — STRY-08).
    - **The cello and ambient layers continue.** The audio is *quiet*, *finite*,
      *understood* — never crescendos again, never hard-cuts.

    This is not "endgame content." It is **rest**. Lineage: *A Dark Room* fades to its
    ending screen and the player returns to it for the same reason they return to a
    finished album — not because there is more, but because there was *enough*.

    ## What is the finite Roothold ceiling tied to?

    Roothold's ceiling is anchored in the **count of authored fragments and the count
    of Seasons** — not in an arbitrary number, not in a designer's intuition.

    The principle:

    > *One cannot accumulate more Roothold than the player has actually understood,
    > and what the player can understand is bounded by what the writer has actually written.*

    Concrete tie:

    - Roothold gain per Season is gated to a hard cap proportional to the fragment
      count of that Season + a small contribution from Roothold-relevant story beats
      (Lura conversations, the Nameless Man's arc, the Archivist's question, etc.).
    - Total Roothold ceiling = Σ(per-Season caps).
    - **Phase 4 enforces this cap** when it implements `migrate_v1_to_v2` and the
      prestige state machine (SEAS-04). Phase 7 verifies the ceiling holds through
      full play.
    - When Roothold reaches the ceiling, the UI displays "Roothold (full)" — never
      a hidden multiplier or "go again to overflow."

    Implication for designers: when adding fragments in Phase 5+, the Roothold ceiling
    *moves* — adding 5 new Season-3 fragments adds proportional headroom. This is
    intentional. Roothold is bounded by content; content is bounded by the writer.

    ## What tonal register does the coda live in?

    - **Warm**, not pyrrhic. The garden persists *because* you tended it; this is
      earned redemption, not survival. Lineage: the closing minutes of *Spiritfarer*,
      not the closing minutes of *A Dark Room* (which earned its bitterness; we earn
      our warmth).
    - **Quiet**, not climactic. The cello does not crescendo at the binary choice.
      It rests. The chosen ending paragraph displays softly; "The garden persists."
      lands without underscore.
    - **Specific**, not abstract. The final visible state is a *real* garden — the
      one this player built, with their actual planted ecosystems, their actual
      Roothold value, their actual collected fragments — viewed in soft dawn-silver
      light per AEST-06's Season-7 palette anchor.
    - **Final**, not infinite. There is no Season 8. There is no New Game+. The Pale
      receded **here**, in **this** garden. Future patches may add cosmetic items or
      additional fragments per CONT-01 (post-launch additive content), but they slot
      *between* authored beats; they never extend the arc.

    ## What this document is NOT

    This document defines principles. It does **not** define:

    - The text of the Season 7 binary-choice scene — *authored Phase 7*.
    - The text of either ending paragraph (`"They help us remember"` / `"They help us grow"`) — *authored Phase 7*.
    - The exact line "The garden persists." appears in both endings, but its surrounding
      paragraph and Lura's final line are *authored Phase 7*, not Phase 1.
    - The credits / coda screen visual treatment — *designed Phase 7*.
    - The exact tonal register or shape of individual final-Season fragments — *authored Phase 7*.
    - The numeric value of the Roothold ceiling — *computed Phase 4* from the
      content count at that point + ROADMAP-locked principle.

    This document is **the principle the economy obeys, the writer obeys, and the
    Phase 7 designer obeys** — not the implementation of any of those.

    ## Source Documents

    This doctrine consolidates constraints already locked in:

    - **PROJECT.md** § "Core Value" — "every idle mechanic must function as a metaphor"; "what survives is what you understood"
    - **REQUIREMENTS.md** SEAS-04 (finite Roothold ceiling), SEAS-09 (Season 7 late-game shape), SEAS-10 (rest state, not infinite prestige tiers), STRY-08 (binary choice + "The garden persists.")
    - **ROADMAP.md** § "Phase 7: Season 7 (Return) & Final Choice" — the 4 success criteria
    - **.planning/research/PITFALLS.md** § "Pitfall 1: The Story Ends but the Idle Loop Doesn't" — the rationale this document directly addresses

    ---

    *Authored: Phase 1 deliverable. Phase 4 enforces the Roothold ceiling. Phase 7 authors
    the treatment-level final scenes against the principles above.*
    ```

    Per CONTEXT D-08: this is principle-level only. Do NOT include the binary-choice scene text, either ending paragraph, Lura's final line, or the credits screen treatment — those are explicitly Phase 7's authoring scope.

    **Step 2 — Write `scripts/doctrine.test.ts`** — the doc-lint Vitest test (per RESEARCH § Validation Architecture PIPE-05 row):
    ```typescript
    import { describe, it, expect } from 'vitest';
    import { readFileSync, existsSync } from 'node:fs';

    describe('PIPE-05: doctrine documents exist with required H2 sections', () => {
      describe('.planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md', () => {
        const PATH = '.planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md';

        it('exists', () => {
          expect(existsSync(PATH)).toBe(true);
        });

        it('contains all 4 required H2 sections', () => {
          const md = readFileSync(PATH, 'utf8');
          expect(md).toMatch(/^## Banned Mechanics$/m);
          expect(md).toMatch(/^## Allowed Engagement$/m);
          expect(md).toMatch(/^## Review Checklist$/m);
          expect(md).toMatch(/^## Source Documents$/m);
        });

        it('cites all 4 source documents (PROJECT, REQUIREMENTS, CLAUDE, PITFALLS)', () => {
          const md = readFileSync(PATH, 'utf8');
          expect(md).toMatch(/PROJECT\.md/);
          expect(md).toMatch(/REQUIREMENTS\.md/);
          expect(md).toMatch(/CLAUDE\.md/);
          expect(md).toMatch(/PITFALLS\.md/);
        });

        it('does NOT propose a lint rule on UX strings (CONTEXT D-07 explicit rejection)', () => {
          const md = readFileSync(PATH, 'utf8');
          // The doc may *mention* that lint rules were rejected, but it must not
          // propose adding one. Allow "no lint rule" but reject "add a lint rule".
          expect(md).not.toMatch(/\b(add|implement|propose).{0,40}lint rule/i);
        });
      });

      describe('.planning/season-7-end-state.md', () => {
        const PATH = '.planning/season-7-end-state.md';

        it('exists', () => {
          expect(existsSync(PATH)).toBe(true);
        });

        it('contains all 5 required H2 sections (CONTEXT D-08)', () => {
          const md = readFileSync(PATH, 'utf8');
          expect(md).toMatch(/^## What does \*rest state\* mean\?$/m);
          expect(md).toMatch(/^## What is the finite Roothold ceiling tied to\?$/m);
          expect(md).toMatch(/^## What tonal register does the coda live in\?$/m);
          expect(md).toMatch(/^## What this document is NOT$/m);
          expect(md).toMatch(/^## Source Documents$/m);
        });

        it('cites SEAS-04, SEAS-09, SEAS-10, STRY-08', () => {
          const md = readFileSync(PATH, 'utf8');
          expect(md).toMatch(/SEAS-04/);
          expect(md).toMatch(/SEAS-09/);
          expect(md).toMatch(/SEAS-10/);
          expect(md).toMatch(/STRY-08/);
        });

        it('does NOT include treatment-level details forbidden by CONTEXT D-08', () => {
          const md = readFileSync(PATH, 'utf8');
          // Check the "What this document is NOT" section is present — this is the
          // structural guarantee against treatment-level scope creep.
          expect(md).toMatch(/## What this document is NOT/);
          // The doc must explicitly disclaim authoring the ending paragraphs.
          expect(md).toMatch(/authored Phase 7/);
        });
      });
    });
    ```

    **Step 3 — Run `npx vitest run scripts/doctrine.test.ts`** and confirm all assertions pass (~10 assertions across 2 files).

    **Step 4 — Run `npm test`** and confirm the entire Phase-1 suite (sentinel + lint-firewall + save layer + content loader + asset validator + doctrine) is green.

    **Step 5 — Commit `docs(01-06): author Season 7 end-state principle doctrine + Vitest doc-lint test (PIPE-05)`.**
  </action>
  <verify>
    <automated>npx vitest run scripts/doctrine.test.ts &amp;&amp; test -f .planning/season-7-end-state.md &amp;&amp; ! test -f docs/season-7-end-state.md</automated>
  </verify>
  <acceptance_criteria>
    - File exists at `.planning/season-7-end-state.md` (NOT `docs/`, per CONTEXT D-09) — verify with `test -f .planning/season-7-end-state.md && ! test -f docs/season-7-end-state.md`.
    - Contains all 5 required H2 sections — verify with `grep -cE "^## (What does \\*rest state\\* mean|What is the finite Roothold ceiling tied to|What tonal register does the coda live in|What this document is NOT|Source Documents)" .planning/season-7-end-state.md` returns 5.
    - Cites SEAS-04, SEAS-09, SEAS-10, STRY-08 — verify with `grep -cE "(SEAS-04|SEAS-09|SEAS-10|STRY-08)" .planning/season-7-end-state.md` returns at least 4.
    - Includes the "What this document is NOT" section to prevent treatment-level scope creep — verify with `grep -q "## What this document is NOT" .planning/season-7-end-state.md`.
    - Does NOT include the binary-choice scene text — verify with `! grep -qE '"They help us remember"' .planning/season-7-end-state.md` (the QUOTED phrase is referenced as a citation but the scene text itself is not authored here; the test allows mention of the phrase as a reference but checks it does not appear inside a code block or as flowing prose intended to be the final-scene text).

      **Note:** The doc DOES quote `"They help us remember"` and `"They help us grow"` as reference labels (in the "What this document is NOT" section, naming what is NOT being authored here). This is acceptable per CONTEXT D-08 — the rule is "do not author the *scene*", not "do not name the choice." Verify with `grep -E '"They help us remember"' .planning/season-7-end-state.md` returns at most one match (the disclaimer reference), and the matching line contains the words "Phase 7" or "authored":
      ```bash
      grep -E '"They help us remember"' .planning/season-7-end-state.md | grep -qE "(Phase 7|authored)"
      ```
    - `scripts/doctrine.test.ts` exists and passes — verify with `npx vitest run scripts/doctrine.test.ts 2>&1 | grep -E "passed"` exits 0.
    - The doctrine test asserts existence + H2 sections + source citations for both docs — verify with `grep -cE "existsSync|toMatch.*##" scripts/doctrine.test.ts` returns at least 10.
  </acceptance_criteria>
  <done>
    `.planning/season-7-end-state.md` authored at principle level with the 5 required H2 sections, Roothold-ceiling-tied-to-content principle, the explicit "What this document is NOT" boundary against treatment scope creep; `scripts/doctrine.test.ts` enforces structural integrity of both doctrine docs via Vitest; `npm test` green; commit landed.
  </done>
</task>

</tasks>

<threat_model>
No security-relevant code in this plan; doctrine docs and a doc-lint test only. No runtime code; no untrusted inputs; no I/O beyond reading committed Markdown files at test time.
</threat_model>

<verification>
- Both doctrine docs exist under `.planning/` (per CONTEXT D-09).
- `scripts/doctrine.test.ts` passes — both docs have all required H2 sections and cite all required source documents.
- `npm test` green for the entire Phase-1 suite.
- Phase 7 has a principle contract to author against; Phase 4 has the Roothold-ceiling tie-to-content principle to implement against.
- No new design work was done — both docs are consolidations of existing PROJECT/REQUIREMENTS/CLAUDE/ROADMAP/PITFALLS constraints (per CONTEXT D-07 + D-08).
</verification>

<success_criteria>
- `.planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md` consolidates banned-pattern enumeration with 4 required H2 sections (Banned Mechanics, Allowed Engagement, Review Checklist, Source Documents) and ≥15 banned patterns.
- `.planning/season-7-end-state.md` answers principle-level the 3 questions per CONTEXT D-08 + has the explicit "What this document is NOT" boundary section.
- `scripts/doctrine.test.ts` enforces structural integrity automatically (PIPE-05).
- No lint rule on UX strings (per CONTEXT D-07 explicit rejection).
- Both docs live under `.planning/`, not `docs/` (per CONTEXT D-09).
</success_criteria>

<output>
After completion, create `.planning/phases/01-foundations-and-doctrine/01-06-SUMMARY.md` documenting:
- Both docs' final paths and brief contents summary.
- Confirmation that the doc-lint test (`scripts/doctrine.test.ts`) passes.
- Note for Phase 4: the Roothold ceiling enforcement task should reference `.planning/season-7-end-state.md` § "What is the finite Roothold ceiling tied to?" for the principle.
- Note for Phase 7: the binary choice scene authoring should reference `.planning/season-7-end-state.md` § "What this document is NOT" for the boundary of what's authored when.
- Note for ongoing UX/monetization reviews: `.planning/anti-fomo-doctrine.md` is the canonical reference; consult before any UX change.
</output>