refactor(code-review): defer finding IDs until consolidation

src/modules/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/steps/step-03-context-aware-review.md

@@ -43,15 +43,14 @@ Review `{git_discrepancies}` and create findings:
 
 | Discrepancy Type | Severity |
 | --- | --- |
-| Files changed but not in story File List | MEDIUM |
-| Story lists files but no git changes | HIGH |
-| Uncommitted changes not documented | MEDIUM |
+| Files changed but not in story File List | Medium |
+| Story lists files but no git changes | High |
+| Uncommitted changes not documented | Medium |
 
-For each discrepancy, add to `{context_aware_findings}`:
+For each discrepancy, add to `{context_aware_findings}` (no IDs yet - assigned after merge):
 
 ```
 {
-  id: "CAF-{n}",
   source: "git-discrepancy",
   severity: "...",
   description: "...",
@@ -66,15 +65,14 @@ For EACH AC in `{acceptance_criteria}`:
 1. Read the AC requirement
 2. Search implementation files in `{comprehensive_file_list}` for evidence
 3. Determine status: IMPLEMENTED, PARTIAL, or MISSING
-4. If PARTIAL or MISSING → add HIGH severity finding
+4. If PARTIAL or MISSING → add High severity finding
 
 Add to `{context_aware_findings}`:
 
 ```
 {
-  id: "CAF-{n}",
   source: "ac-validation",
-  severity: "HIGH",
+  severity: "High",
   description: "AC {id} not fully implemented: {details}",
   evidence: "Expected: {ac}, Found: {what_was_found}"
 }
@@ -86,16 +84,15 @@ For EACH task marked [x] in `{tasks_with_status}`:
 
 1. Read the task description
 2. Search files for evidence it was actually done
-3. **CRITICAL**: If marked [x] but NOT DONE → CRITICAL finding
+3. **Critical**: If marked [x] but NOT DONE → Critical finding
 4. Record specific proof (file:line) if done
 
 Add to `{context_aware_findings}` if false:
 
 ```
 {
-  id: "CAF-{n}",
   source: "task-audit",
-  severity: "CRITICAL",
+  severity: "Critical",
   description: "Task marked complete but not implemented: {task}",
   evidence: "Searched: {files}, Found: no evidence of {expected}"
 }
@@ -137,10 +134,10 @@ Present context-aware findings:
 **Phase 1: Context-Aware Review Complete**
 
 **Findings:** {count}
-- CRITICAL: {count}
-- HIGH: {count}
-- MEDIUM: {count}
-- LOW: {count}
+- Critical: {count}
+- High: {count}
+- Medium: {count}
+- Low: {count}
 
 Proceeding to Phase 2: Adversarial Review...
 ```

src/modules/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/steps/step-04-adversarial-review.md

@@ -93,12 +93,11 @@ Capture findings from adversarial review.
 
 Evaluate severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low) and validity (Real, Noise, Undecided).
 
-Create `{asymmetric_findings}` list:
+Add each finding to `{asymmetric_findings}` (no IDs yet - assigned after merge):
 
 ```
 {
-  id: "AAF-{n}",
-  source: "adversarial-review",
+  source: "adversarial",
   severity: "...",
   validity: "...",
   description: "...",
@@ -115,15 +114,15 @@ Present adversarial findings:
 
 **Reviewer Context:** Pure diff review (no story knowledge)
 **Findings:** {count}
-- CRITICAL: {count}
-- HIGH: {count}
-- MEDIUM: {count}
-- LOW: {count}
+- Critical: {count}
+- High: {count}
+- Medium: {count}
+- Low: {count}
 
 **Validity Assessment:**
-- Real issues: {count}
-- Noise/false positives: {count}
-- Needs judgment: {count}
+- Real: {count}
+- Noise: {count}
+- Undecided: {count}
 
 Proceeding to findings consolidation...
 ```

src/modules/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/code-review/steps/step-05-consolidate-findings.md

@@ -57,53 +57,39 @@ Keep the MORE DETAILED version:
 - If adversarial finding has better technical detail → keep that
 - When in doubt, keep context-aware (has more context)
 
-Mark duplicates as merged:
-
-```
-{
-  id: "CF-{n}",
-  merged_from: ["CAF-3", "AAF-2"],
-  kept_version: "CAF-3",
-  reason: "Context-aware version includes AC reference"
-}
-```
+Note which findings were merged (for transparency in the summary).
 
 ### 3. Normalize Severity
 
-Apply consistent severity scale:
-
-| Severity | Icon | Criteria |
-| --- | --- | --- |
-| CRITICAL | RED | Security vuln, data loss, tasks marked done but not, broken core functionality |
-| HIGH | ORANGE | Missing AC implementation, logic errors, missing critical error handling |
-| MEDIUM | YELLOW | Performance issues, incomplete features, documentation gaps |
-| LOW | GREEN | Code style, minor improvements, suggestions |
+Apply consistent severity scale (Critical, High, Medium, Low).
 
 ### 4. Filter Noise
 
-Review adversarial findings marked as NOISE:
+Review adversarial findings marked as Noise:
 
 - If clearly false positive (e.g., style preference, not actual issue) → exclude
-- If questionable → keep with UNDECIDED validity
-- If context reveals it's actually valid → upgrade to REAL
+- If questionable → keep with Undecided validity
+- If context reveals it's actually valid → upgrade to Real
 
 **Do NOT filter:**
 
-- Any CRITICAL or HIGH severity
+- Any Critical or High severity
 - Any context-aware findings (they have story context)
 
-### 5. Create Consolidated Table
+### 5. Sort and Number Findings
+
+Sort by severity (Critical → High → Medium → Low), then assign IDs: F1, F2, F3, etc.
 
 Build `{consolidated_findings}`:
 
 ```markdown
 | ID | Severity | Source | Description | Location |
 |----|----------|--------|-------------|----------|
-| CF-1 | CRITICAL | task-audit | Task 3 marked [x] but not implemented | src/auth.ts |
-| CF-2 | HIGH | ac-validation | AC2 partially implemented | src/api/*.ts |
-| CF-3 | HIGH | adversarial | Missing error handling in API calls | src/api/client.ts:45 |
-| CF-4 | MEDIUM | git-discrepancy | File changed but not in story | src/utils.ts |
-| CF-5 | LOW | adversarial | Magic number should be constant | src/config.ts:12 |
+| F1 | Critical | task-audit | Task 3 marked [x] but not implemented | src/auth.ts |
+| F2 | High | ac-validation | AC2 partially implemented | src/api/*.ts |
+| F3 | High | adversarial | Missing error handling in API calls | src/api/client.ts:45 |
+| F4 | Medium | git-discrepancy | File changed but not in story | src/utils.ts |
+| F5 | Low | adversarial | Magic number should be constant | src/config.ts:12 |
 ```
 
 ### 6. Present Consolidated Findings
@@ -115,10 +101,10 @@ Build `{consolidated_findings}`:
 
 **Summary:**
 - Total findings: {count}
-- CRITICAL: {count}
-- HIGH: {count}
-- MEDIUM: {count}
-- LOW: {count}
+- Critical: {count}
+- High: {count}
+- Medium: {count}
+- Low: {count}
 
 **Deduplication:** {merged_count} duplicate findings merged
 
@@ -126,16 +112,16 @@ Build `{consolidated_findings}`:
 
 ## Findings by Severity
 
-### CRITICAL (Must Fix)
+### Critical (Must Fix)
 {list critical findings with full details}
 
-### HIGH (Should Fix)
+### High (Should Fix)
 {list high findings with full details}
 
-### MEDIUM (Consider Fixing)
+### Medium (Consider Fixing)
 {list medium findings}
 
-### LOW (Nice to Fix)
+### Low (Nice to Fix)
 {list low findings}
 
 ---