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.
Mechanism — identifiers, generation, the lint.
4 of 69 decisions. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADR-047 v4 | Promotion is audited in small persisted batches, ranked by expected yield, with decisions recorded apart from status changes | The owner’s procedure of 2026-10-19 for finding entries whose evidence has outgrown their status. Candidates are triaged from metadata by a rubric that sets review order and never standing. They are reviewed five at a time, and each review ends in one of six dispositions with a specific blocker. Every step is persisted in record/promotion-audit/: a versioned queue.yaml with a hand-off block, one decision file per candidate, and one file per batch. A check keeps the queue and the decision files in step. Status changes go in separate pull requests of at most three entries. Rejected: one large audit held in a conversation, which is lost when the session is; a queue derived only from the decision files, which cannot say what is in progress; and promoting in the same step as reviewing. | Superseded — by ADR-057; Superseded on 2026-10-27 by the owner’s acceptance of ADR-057, which derives the worklist from the record on each pass instead of keeping a queue. The three evidence rulings of versions 2 to 4 stand under it. |
| ADR-049 v2 | A QUESTION is Answered by an Active CLAIM or THEORY, and a partly answered question is split into an Answered child and a narrowed Open parent | An Active THEORY is the record’s current account, so it can answer a QUESTION as an Active CLAIM can. A CLAIM is not filed only to restate what a reading already establishes. A question is Answered when its Active answerers, alone or together, answer it as posed and in its full scope. When they answer only part of it, the answered part is filed as a child QUESTION that refines the parent and is marked Answered. The parent is reworded to what is left and stays Open. Rejected: requiring an Active CLAIM, which makes the record assert in its own voice what it relies on others to justify; marking a partly answered question Answered; and reframing the parent into new questions. | Active |
| ADR-051 | A CASE names where the record got it: reported_in links it to the work, reading or account that reports it | A documented CASE usually comes from somewhere: a paper that reports a study, a reading that describes an episode, an account whose result the case records. The record had no field for that. A CASE could support a CLAIM but not point to a LIT, NOTE or THEORY, so its provenance lived in prose. At the owner’s direction (2026-10-23), CASE gains reported_in, naming LITs, NOTEs and THEORYs, with the converse reports on each. It records provenance, not support. | Active |
| ADR-057 v7 | Status review is ranked by reliance, derived from the record each pass, covers relations as well as statuses, and changes status in the pull request that decides it | The owner, 2026-10-27, after asking for status changes and relation changes on claims “that a lot of interesting downstream material depends on”: the record had changed materially since the promotion audit of ADR-047 stopped, and its process would benefit from changing. The audit never reached those claims: 15 of the 19 most-relied-on Proposed entries never entered its queue, its decision files went stale (230 of 308), and its owner questions sat unasked in a hand-off string. This decision replaces the procedure. A worklist is derived from the record’s frontmatter on each pass and kept nowhere. It ranks Proposed entries by how much rests on them, and it lists credence inversions, retired premises and Open questions with an Active answer. A pass reviews a load-bearing entry together with the premises and objections that hold it back. It changes statuses and relations in its own pull request, records its reasoning on the entries and in one workbench entry, and puts its owner rulings in the pull request as a checklist. ADR-047’s three evidence rulings stand. Rejected: resuming the old queue, which would re-rank a record a third larger by a rubric that ranked these claims last; keeping per-code decision files, which drift from the entries they judge; and separate promotion pull requests, which took about 140 pull requests over three days and left five decided promotions undone. | Active |