Files
hq/02-DECISIONS/0021-hq-is-the-source-of-the-constitution.md
T
jschoubben b4607dfc03 Numbers are identity; the reading order is a generated, checked index
Decided after measuring what renumbering actually costs: 96 references in code
comments across two repositories, none of which would have failed to compile.
They would have pointed at the wrong reasoning, which is worse than a broken
link because nothing reports it.

So a number identifies a record and never changes. It cannot also be a
position -- a position moves when the set changes, and an identity that moves
is not one.

The reading order moves into an index generated from each record's `topic:`.
Six topics, in the order somebody learns the system.

The index is WRITTEN rather than only generated on demand, which reverses what
this repository previously said. The reason it said otherwise is that a
hand-written index drifts -- but a reader looking at the folder on a forge sees
the folder, not a command, and the drift objection is answered by checking
rather than by refusing to write one. That is §5's own rule: a rule states how
it is checked.

Two checks, both confirmed to bite. index.py fails when the written order no
longer matches the records. records.py fails when a record has no topic or one
nobody defined -- the quiet failure being a record that vanishes from the order
rather than appearing in the wrong place.
2026-08-28 23:39:18 +02:00

3.1 KiB

topic, status, date, deciders, reconstructed
topic status date deciders reconstructed
how we work accepted 2026-08-23 jochen false

21. HQ is the source of the mesh constitution

Context

ADR 0020 established a canonical rule set, injected into every eligible design session and checked before output is accepted. It lives in the knowledge base, where the orchestrator reads it.

HQ separately carried a document stating overlapping rules with the reasoning that earned each one. Two texts, one enforced and one not.

That arrangement has a predictable outcome and it is not a tie. The enforced copy wins by default, because it is the one that blocks work. The reasoned copy quietly stops being true, and the rules survive without the incidents that justify them — at which point a rule reads as arbitrary, and an arbitrary rule is the kind people route around.

Considered options

  1. The knowledge-base page is the source; HQ points at it. Rejected, though it is the honest description of what was already happening. It leaves the reasoning downstream of the rule, and the reasoning is the part that makes a rule survive a challenge.
  2. Accept the overlap and let both stand. Rejected: two authorities is no authority, and the drift is silent.
  3. HQ is the source; the governed page is derived and published from it. Chosen.

Decision

00-META/how-we-build.md is the source. The governed page the mesh injects is derived from it — the rules without the reasoning — and is never edited directly.

Publishing is a playbook step, not a manual act, and it ends with reading the page back and verifying the change is present. A publish that reported success and did nothing is exactly the failure class this mesh keeps producing (ADR 0010).

Section numbering is stable, because the orchestrator and the review fragments cite sections by number.

Consequences

  • One source, many surfaces — the same argument HQ's separation already rests on (ADR 0019), applied to the rules themselves.
  • Each rule keeps the incident that earned it, in a place that is reviewed as a diff.
  • An edit to the derived page survives until the next sync and then vanishes. The playbook says so, and nothing mechanically prevents it.
  • The sync is manual and is the weak point. An unsynced rule is a rule the mesh does not enforce, whatever the source says — so the playbook requires the failure to be stated rather than passed over. This is the same class of gap as 04-ISSUES/006, and it is worth watching for the same reason.
  • The document grew from four rules to seven sections, because it now has to carry everything the mesh enforces rather than only what someone thought to write down.

References