The pointers back from what yesterday's records changed, which I missed twice #197

2026-09-29T22:47:33Z

jschoubben commented

2026-09-29 22:47:33 +00:00

Audit of what the ADR 0148/0149/0150 work actually left in the records. Five gaps, and three of them are the same mistake I fixed last round:

ADR 0066 still described a routed name being written into every container, after 0148 replaced that with resolution.
ADR 0016 still read as though the lab were the test bed, after 0149 said the live mesh is.
Issues 109 and 135 said nothing about 0148 — and 135 is the record whose own fix 0148 undoes, so it is exactly where a reader arrives to ask why the digest carries names.
Designs 18 and 20 claimed updated: dates from before I edited their frontmatter.
117's fixed-by named the record but not the commit.

The convention is now written in 02-DECISIONS/README.md, with the shape and three worked examples — and with the honest note that it is not machine-checked and cannot be from extends: alone: 102 records extend another, 87 have no back-reference, and that is correct. Making it mechanical means a record declaring the relationship in frontmatter, which is a schema change and is not mine to decide.

Checks: records, index, cycle all pass.

Audit of what the ADR 0148/0149/0150 work actually left in the records. Five gaps, and three of them are the same mistake I fixed last round: - **ADR 0066** still described a routed name being written into every container, after 0148 replaced that with resolution. - **ADR 0016** still read as though the lab were the test bed, after 0149 said the live mesh is. - **Issues 109 and 135** said nothing about 0148 — and 135 is the record whose own fix 0148 undoes, so it is exactly where a reader arrives to ask why the digest carries names. - **Designs 18 and 20** claimed `updated:` dates from before I edited their frontmatter. - **117's `fixed-by`** named the record but not the commit. The convention is now written in `02-DECISIONS/README.md`, with the shape and three worked examples — and with the honest note that **it is not machine-checked and cannot be from `extends:` alone**: 102 records extend another, 87 have no back-reference, and that is correct. Making it mechanical means a record declaring the relationship in frontmatter, which is a schema change and is not mine to decide. Checks: records, index, cycle all pass.

jschoubben added 1 commit 2026-09-29 22:47:33 +00:00

The pointers back from what yesterday's records changed, which I missed twice 53b94c51bb

Three records were left describing a mechanism a new record had moved,
and a reader arrives at them by following a citation: 0066 still said a
routed name is written into every container after 0148 replaced that with
resolution; 0016 still read as though the lab were the test bed after
0149; and issues 109 and 135 said nothing about 0148 ending the copying
that 135's own fix made comparable. Each was a citation leading to the
wrong answer in a record that was not wrong about anything it decided.

This is the second time in one session. The playbook rule I added last
round did not stop it, so the convention is now written where the record
conventions live, with the shape to use and three worked examples — and
with the honest note that it is NOT machine-checked and cannot be from
`extends:` alone: 102 records extend another, 87 have no back-reference,
and that is correct, because extending usually means building on a
context. Making it mechanical means a record declaring the relationship
in frontmatter, which is a schema change and is not mine to decide.

Also: designs 18 and 20 claimed `updated:` dates from before I edited
them, and 117's `fixed-by` gained the commit beside the record.

jschoubben merged commit ba30286896 into main

2026-09-29 22:47:46 +00:00

jschoubben deleted branch decision/the-pointers-back-from-what-these-narrow

2026-09-29 22:47:47 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: novox/hq#197