2026-10-18 15:09:16 +00:00
1 changed files with 6 additions and 1 deletions
@@ -94,7 +94,10 @@ about an hour, and said to the operator if it runs past.
   deferral no issue tracks. The knowledge base then reviews the proposal itself, through a judgement that
   sees only the record, the records it links and the rules, and answers `approve` or `changes`. On
   `changes` the record stays proposed with the findings: revise it by proposing it again, whole, with `why`;
-   at most three rounds, then the findings go to the operator with a recommendation.
+   after three rounds the lead does not stop to ask, but fixes each further finding itself and proposes again
+   (the operator, 2026-10-18: ADR 0429 went past three rounds, each finding narrower than the last, and asking
+   first only added a wait). Only a finding that would change what was decided, rather than how the record
+   says it, goes to the operator, with a recommendation.
   On `approve` it is accepted, or, when it says `needs-operator`, it waits for the operator's Approve on a
   channel that proves who answered. Nothing proposed is in force. `knowledge-base.get` shows a record's
   reviews and the operator's ask when it waits for one.
@@ -164,3 +167,5 @@ when one fails. In this repository, `records.py` checks that a design's `decisio
 order's six topics, which the knowledge base reads. The three habits of graduating step 2 (side by side, clauses
 from the direction, the pre-check) are the lead's, read by the reviewer; `propose` refuses a link to nothing,
 a deferral no issue tracks and a retired word, and the review returns a record named but not linked.
+The rounds are read in `knowledge-base.get` (its reviews, one per version): a question to the operator about a
+record's wording after its third round is the failure of step 4 of *Writing a decision record*.