0002: Three reviews, one per part of the template
Decision: the evidence is split into three multivocal reviews, one per part of the topic: its types, its display at depth, its storage.
Status: accepted, 2026-10-29. Shape: decision record.
Context
- The README asked four questions: genres, depth, self-reference, graphs.
- Two sibling repositories were writing reviews on the same day, and some works (advance organizers, Swales's moves, structured proofs) were already reviewed in the family.
Decision
- information-typing answers genres; progressive-disclosure answers depth; document-model answers self-reference and graphs.
- Each work is reviewed in one repository only. The boundaries were agreed by message with the sessions writing the siblings, and every key was checked by script against their bibliographies.
Consequences
- 218 sources, with no work reviewed twice across the family.
- Facts the three reviews share (method, counting databases, markings) live once, in the evidence README.
- The cost: a reader of one review follows links to the others and to the siblings for what is held there.