Files
hq/02-DECISIONS/README.md
T
jochen 179fd7f83f To-be 38: building the operator's machine as work packages; ADR 0175 collision renumbered to 0180
The runtime work of design 37 broken down the way design 28 broke down the
bus: what exists measured (the host needs no change — a process and an
archive are what the runtime and a bundle are; the runtime does the job for
one module and must do it for a list), the order the dependencies allow, and
eight packages each ending at a proof on the live mesh — the lab skipped by
the operator's decision, ADR 0149 cited. WP1 the runtime serves many modules;
WP2 the controller composes one per node (a node principal, bundle archives,
the runtime's process, the gate); WP3 the runtime is a module and the console
its serving mode; WP4 the packet filter moves first; WP5 the shell on a
server; WP6 the service manager on a workstation; WP7–8 named and not broken
down.

Main carried two records numbered 0175 and cycle.py refused it: the one that
landed last (the found front end is uninstalled) takes 0180, the next free
across main and the open changes, with a dated note; design 08's citation
follows it; the index is regenerated.
2026-10-02 17:20:14 +02:00

29 KiB
Raw Blame History

02-DECISIONS

Architecture decision records — the "why" trail behind the rules in 00-META and the specifications in 03-DESIGN.

Numbered 02 because a decision precedes the design it authorises. Research concludes, the decision is recorded here, and only then is the design written. Following the folder numbers walks the process in the order it happens.

One file per decision, numbered, never deleted. A superseded record has its status: changed and gains a pointer to what replaced it — its reasoning is never rewritten. The reasoning that was rejected is the expensive half to rediscover.

Progressive insight

A record is a decision, not a snapshot of everything that was true the day it was written, and those two fail differently. A fact a record asserted can turn out to be wrong while the decision it supports stays right — a count taken before anyone measured, a file named that does not exist, a proof attributed to a step that cannot run it. Superseding a record for that buries a correct decision under a second one, and teaches every reader to first work out which of two records is live. Done a few times, the reading order stops being one.

So: a correction of fact that leaves the decision standing is made in the record, in place, marked and dated.

Progressive insight — YYYY-MM-DD. What was found, what the record said before, and what it says instead.

Three conditions, all of which hold:

  • It corrects a fact, not a judgement. That a suite does not exist is a fact. That building it is the wrong order is a judgement, and judgements supersede.
  • It adds; it never quietly replaces. Where body text changes, the note says what stood there before, so a reader who followed a citation to the old wording can find out what happened to it. A correction nobody can see is indistinguishable from a record that was always right, which is the failure the immutability rule exists to prevent.
  • The decision, the options weighed and the consequences stand untouched. If the correction changes what was decided, which alternatives were rejected, or a consequence another record relies on, it is not an insight — write the superseding record.

What still supersedes, without exception: reversing a decision, changing its scope, rejecting an option it accepted, or making a consequence false that a later record cites. The test is not how large the edit looks in a diff; it is whether a reader who acted on the old text would now be wrong about what was decided rather than about a detail the decision did not rest on.

How this is checked. 00-META/checks/records.py requires every insight to be marked in the form above and dated no earlier than the record's own date: — an unmarked edit is a rule violation the reviewer looks for in the diff, and a marked one is legible in the record itself. The git history is the backstop, not the record of intent; the note is the record of intent.

A pointer back from what a record changes

A new record naming an old one is not enough. Where a record changes a mechanism an older record states — without reversing the decision, so no supersession — the older record gets a dated note saying where its mechanism now lives. A reader arrives at the old record by following a citation, and finds text that is still the decision and no longer the method; nothing in it says a later record moved the method, and the new record is not in their hands.

The mechanism changed — YYYY-MM-DD, by ADR NNNN. What still stands, what moved, and why.

Three examples of the shape, all found by being missed: ADR 0066 still described a routed name being written into every container after 0148 replaced that with resolution; ADR 0047 still said a module's code runs in a container after 0150 made it a supervised process; and ADR 0016 still read as though the lab were the test bed after 0149 said the live mesh is. Each was a citation leading to the wrong answer, in a record that was not wrong about anything it decided.

This is not machine-checked, and it cannot be from extends: alone. 102 records extend another and 87 name a parent that does not mention them, which is correct: extending usually means building on a context, and a one-directional pointer is the right shape for that. What needs a note is the narrower case where the parent's own text has gone stale, and which case that is, is a judgement — so it is a rule for the author and the reviewer, and the diff is where it is caught. Making it mechanical would mean a record declaring the relationship in its frontmatter, which is a change to the record schema and has not been decided.

The records run in the order the decisions were taken, oldest first.

Every decision is a record. There is no ledger and no index file — if a decision is worth recording it is worth a record, and if it is not worth a record it is not recorded (ADR 0019). A "decision" small enough to be one line is almost always a rule, and a rule belongs in 00-META/how-we-build.md, where it is enforced and keeps the incident that earned it.

Frontmatter

---
status: proposed | accepted | superseded
date: YYYY-MM-DD          # when the decision was taken, not when it was written down
deciders: name
reconstructed: true|false # true when the record was written after the fact from evidence
superseded-by:            # 02-DECISIONS/NNNN-....md, when status is superseded
extends:                  # 02-DECISIONS/NNNN-....md, when this record widens an earlier one
---

Body

# N. Title in plain language

## Context            what was true, with evidence
## Considered Options numbered, each with why it was rejected
## Decision           what was decided
## Consequences       what follows, including what got harder
## References         commits, pull requests, knowledge-base entries, prior art

State evidence, not assertion. "Zero of 124 modules declare brain as a dependency" outranks "the dependency rule is not followed".

Reconstructed records

Records 0001–0014 were written on 2026-08-23, after the decisions they describe. Records 0015 onward were taken as records. Those decisions were taken in implementation rather than in a document; the records state what was decided and the evidence it was decided from, and each carries reconstructed: true and says so in its first lines.

A reconstructed record is not a transcript. Where the deliberation is not recoverable, the options section states what the alternatives were and why the chosen one won on the evidence available — not a discussion that did not happen. Where a date is not establishable it says so rather than guessing.

Index

A number identifies a record and never changes. Records are referenced from outside this repository — code comments, commit messages — so a number that moves invalidates them silently. Renumbering once cost 96 references across two code repositories, and that is why the numbers are now fixed.

So the folder is in creation order, and the reading order lives here. It is generated from each record's topic: and written, because a reader looking at the folder on a forge sees the folder rather than a command. The objection to a written index is that it drifts — which is answered by checking it rather than by refusing to write one:

python3 00-META/checks/index.py --write    regenerate
python3 00-META/checks/index.py            fail if stale

What the mesh is

Its tiers, from the bottom up

What runs on them, and how it gets there

How it is built

How it is checked

How we work