Decision tags — What a decision is about, in the order the index shows them. Open, unlike the topics: a decision that needs a word it does not have simply gets one.
ontology.
5 of 66 decisions. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADR-020 | The recommendations are scoped by kind of claim, not by domain | Superseded — by ADR-026; The decision below — scope by kind of claim, not by domain — is carried forward unchanged. What is superseded is the alternative it rejected: it declined to add generative-modeling and vision-and-graphics to the practice vocabulary, and that paragraph was being cited as a scope boundary, which is the exact thing this ADR was written to remove. | |
| ADR-021 v2 | The practice vocabulary takes the kind-of-claim topics the reading list already has | Active | |
| ADR-025 v2 | A third scheme: NOTE, the structured reading of a paper | A LIT note says what a paper’s standing in the anthology is. It has never said what the paper contains, and the corpus now holds two demonstrations of what that costs. NOTE is a third scheme: one document per paper actually read, carrying the contribution, the assumptions, the theorem-level results, the claims with their strength, and the recommendations derived — with the status recording how deeply it was read. | Active |
| ADR-026 | One topic vocabulary: the practice registry takes the same thirteen the reading list has | ADR-020 scoped the recommendations by kind of claim rather than by domain, and that decision stands. Its rejected alternative does not: it declined to add generative-modeling and vision-and-graphics to the practice vocabulary on a browsing argument that the evidence since has not borne out, and that reads to a later reader as a scope boundary — the exact thing ADR-020 was written to remove. Adds both, making the two vocabularies identical. | Active |
| ADR-028 | One topic vocabulary, one set of glosses: the blurbs are shared too | ADR-026 made the two topic lists identical and recorded that “the two vocabularies become identical”. The keys did; the glosses did not — each scheme kept its own copy, ten of thirteen diverged, and the reading list’s header still described a vocabulary of twelve words that had held thirteen since ADR-026. One topics table now holds both, blurbs included. ADR-027’s deliberate narrowing of analysis-and-evaluation does not survive: a blurb answers “what is this about?”, which ADR-026 already settled is scheme-independent. That decision’s substantive holding — the topic exists, it is a kind of claim, the four practices stay — is carried forward. Rejected: keeping two vocabularies with identical keys, which is the structure that produced the drift. | Active |