Quality Gates
The six quality dimensions a Beat must satisfy in Harmonic Composition — Distinctive, Harmonious, Substantial, Durable, Clear, and Strategically Aligned.
Quality Gates
Every Beat must satisfy six quality dimensions before it transitions from composing to composed in the Beat arc. These dimensions are not a checklist — they are a lens for evaluating whether a Beat is genuinely ready to be advanced.
The Beat represents a capability that stands apart from others in the system without unnecessary overlap or duplication.
The Beat integrates cleanly with the other Beats and supports, rather than conflicts with, the overall Coda.
The Beat addresses a capability of genuine, lasting significance — not a thin concern or an implementation detail dressed as a capability.
The Beat is expected to remain relevant throughout the current phase and beyond, rather than becoming obsolete as soon as the first Revision ships.
The intent and scope of the Beat are unambiguous and can be understood without additional explanation by anyone working in the system.
The Beat advances the system toward the Coda and reflects the priorities of the current phase — not a prior phase or a hypothetical future one.
How the gates are applied
Quality evaluation is how a Beat moves from composing to composed in the Beat arc. Each Beat is assessed against all six dimensions. A Beat that fails one or more dimensions is not discarded — it is refined. The evaluation identifies what is missing or unclear, and the Beat is revised until it can stand on all six.
The dimensions are also applied at the system level: a set of individually well-formed Beats can still fail the Harmonious dimension when considered together, or leave the Coda under-supported when examined for collective coverage.
The purpose of quality evaluation is not to create barriers to progress. It is to ensure that the work delivered in Execute advances a system that is coherent, not just complete.
When a Beat fails a dimension
Quality evaluation is a diagnostic, not a rejection. When a Beat fails one or more dimensions, the response depends on which dimension is at issue.
Fails Distinctive — The Beat overlaps with one or more siblings. Consider merging it with the Beat it duplicates, narrowing its scope to what makes this capability genuinely separate, or decomposing it so each piece stands on its own.
Fails Harmonious — The Beat works against another Beat or pulls away from the Coda. Look for the conflict: it is usually a scope or framing problem, not a fundamental problem with the capability. Revise the title and description until the Beats reinforce each other rather than compete.
Fails Substantial — The Beat describes too thin a concern. If it could be delivered as a single Revision inside another Beat, absorb it there. If the capability is genuinely distinct and valuable, expand the scope to capture what the system actually needs.
Fails Durable — The Beat will be fully resolved by a single Revision, leaving nothing to evolve. Either broaden it to describe the long-term capability the system needs, or dissolve it into a Beat Version of a larger Beat rather than making it a standalone Beat.
Fails Clear — The title or description requires context to understand. Rewrite from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the project: what does a team member understand from reading this Beat's title and description alone? Remove jargon, resolve ambiguous scope, and prefer concrete outcomes over abstract framing.
Fails Strategically Aligned — The Beat addresses a priority from a prior phase or anticipates a future one. Defer it to the phase where it belongs, revise it to address what the current Coda actually requires, or remove it if the current phase cannot justify its existence.