ADR 0292: quote ADR 0283 decision 5 exactly, and weigh a declared part-to-provision mapping

02-DECISIONS/0292-a-consumer-of-the-part-a-provider-waits-on-is-held-under-the-wait-and-passes-its-gate-as-a-wait-for-a-person.md

@@ -40,18 +40,29 @@ needs. Nothing here conflicts with GENESIS.
    Rejected.
 2. **Only the consumers of a provision a wait covers.** Chosen.
 
+**How a wait is known to cover a provision.**
+
+3. *A declared mapping: a manifest field naming, for each waiting part, the provision it gives.* Exact, and
+   `module check` could prove it against the module's offers. Rejected for now: it is a change to the manifest
+   schema, to `module check` and to every waiting module, for a hold no provider needs today — the one waiting
+   module, mounts, provides nothing. It becomes worth it once a provider gives several provisions from parts that
+   wait separately, or a convention-named part is found to mislead the hold.
+4. **The convention on the free-text `part`**: the part named after the provision, or the wait for the provision's
+   shared credential. Chosen: no schema change, and dormant until a provider follows it.
+
 **What the held consumer's gate reads.**
 
-3. *Waiting, as ADR 0240 rule 5 says for an unhealthy provider.* The walk then waits for the operator, possibly for
+5. *Waiting, as ADR 0240 rule 5 says for an unhealthy provider.* The walk then waits for the operator, possibly for
    days, and every walk behind it — ADR 0283 option 4, rejected there for this reason. Rejected.
-4. **A wait for a person ([ADR 0254](0254-a-wait-for-a-persons-new-login-is-not-a-gates-failure-and-each-module-of-a-send-keeps-its-own-pass.md)):
+6. **A wait for a person ([ADR 0254](0254-a-wait-for-a-persons-new-login-is-not-a-gates-failure-and-each-module-of-a-send-keeps-its-own-pass.md)):
    a pass, the wait carried in the verdict**, as ADR 0283 decision 4 reads the waiting module itself. Chosen.
 
 **The provider's severity while consumers wait.**
 
-5. *Urgent, as an unhealthy provider's condition is while consumers wait on it.* ADR 0283 decision 5 says
-   `needs-operator` is a warning and never escalated. Rejected.
-6. **A warning, listing who waits on it.** Chosen.
+7. *Urgent, as an unhealthy provider's condition is while consumers wait on it.* ADR 0283 decision 5 says
+   `needs-operator` is "a warning, the operator's, never escalated by age"; the act is the same act whoever
+   waits on it, and urgency would page the operator for something only they can do and already know of. Rejected.
+8. **A warning, listing who waits on it.** Chosen.
 
 ## Decision