0002: Which findings became principles
Decision: Of the review's findings, one became a principle with a measured grade, and the rules the repository already enforces or shapes became two principles of convention; the rest stay findings.
Status: accepted, 2026-11-03. Shape: decision record.
Context
- The review in family-name graded its findings, and the extension contract asks a principle for each finding that earned measured or supported with caveat, and for each rule a program enforces.
- Only one finding earned a measured grade as a rule: Vaccaro 2024, the combination against each part alone. The teaming reviews (O'Neill 2020, Berretta 2023) earned supported with caveat, but they name a field and give no rule.
- The repository enforces one rule by a program already, scope-overlap, and states another in its front page, the scope table that the program reads.
- A principle must name a registered check, or the standard's principle-coverage fails.
Decision
- Write Compare with each part alone, graded clause by clause, with a new check,
three-arms. - Write One owner per claim, convention, checked by the existing
scope-overlap. - Write A scope table says why, convention, with a new check,
scope-table, and the shape scope table. - Leave as findings: the names of the field, the teaming fit, the third role of the checking machine, and the rule that the model decides nothing.
Consequences
- Good: each principle names a check that runs in CI, and the one measured finding is a rule a case can be held to.
- Good: the scope table, which the overlap check could only read, is now defined in one place with an example.
- Bad:
three-armsis a heuristic over tables; it warns on a glossary that explains the word combination. - Bad: the field's names, the teaming fit and the third role are not rules, so no check holds them; they live in the review only.
- To keep it true: when the third role or the rule that the model decides nothing is measured, write it as a principle with its grade; until then, it stays a finding.