Home / Projects / Orchestrata Ultimate / Decisions / ADR index / ADR-0050

ADR-0050: Amend F13(D) — target semantics, not current-CLI claims; correct the payload

← ADR-0049 · ADR-0051 →

The record

Status: Proposed (awaiting Mohamed — F13 is HIS ratified text; only he amends it) · Date: 2026-08-29

Context

Round-16's lifecycle reviewer verified F13(D) — the ratified ratification-interface clause — against the live tree and found it describes machinery that does not exist as described (R16-4, HIGH): today's session pipeline approve takes --thread on a pipeline escalation, has no amendment id and signs nothing; reject re-enters the stage with feedback where D-5 promises a durable ratify-signed no; no rollback verb exists; and D-3's six-field payload omits kind, amendment, the four overrides, expiry_change_ack, schema_version, and withdrawn — fields C-6's signed pointer payload carries. The clause was written as if the existing verbs already implement the contract; they are the UX PATTERN the contract will follow when SPEC-115 is built. This one defect is the sole criterion-1 blocker on F3, F5, F8-deny-all and F11 — three of them stable across nine snapshots.

Decision (proposed)

Amend F13(D) in place (a correction of a ratified item's description by its ratifier, recorded — not a supersession, because the INTENT is unchanged): (1) state explicitly that D's six steps are the TARGET interface SPEC-115 builds, with today's session pipeline approve/reject named only as the UX pattern it follows; (2) replace D-3's payload enumeration with "the FULL C-6 signed pointer payload (kind, amendment, overrides, expiry_change_ack, withdrawn, schema_version included) — one canonical payload, no unsigned fields"; (3) add the rollback invocation to the verb set (the C-11 deny-episode recovery needs one); (4) reject stays a durable ratify-signed no at the ratification gate (the pipeline-escalation reject verb is a different, unrelated verb — named to prevent the conflation the reviewer caught); adds an override carrier on the approve verb (still one live word plus a recorded reason, never a standing auto-approve).

EXTENDED 2026-08-29 (v17 fold, rule 5b — same clause, same amendment act, still Proposed and pre-ruling): (5) D-1's presentation content is corrected to "the SURFACE'S lineages + FULL verdict histories" — its current operands, "the name's recent lineages + verdicts", were both retired at v16 (the NAME join key and recency died with the silence-gate redesign; building to D-1 as written re-opens laundering-by-time and misses cross-name overlaps — life-R16-10); (6) D-4's "six tri-state checks" becomes "seven" — v17 added overlap_gate, the silence list's act-time evaluator, to the admission checks (conc-R16-4); the ratified sentence is the one place the count cannot be corrected without Mohamed.

Alternatives rejected

Leave F13(D) as-is (four §11 items stay blocked on a falsifiable description); supersede F13 entirely (the contract's substance — traceability, one-word approval, zero manual cryptography — is untouched by the defect).

Consequences

F13 becomes truthful about what exists vs what SPEC-115 must build; the four blocked items' sole criterion-1 blocker clears; the v17 fold applies the amendment ONLY after Mohamed flips this ADR.

Provenance

ruleset-review-r16-lifecycle.md R16-4 + R16-10, ruleset-review-r16-concurrency.md R16-4 (plans/reviews/ruleset/, committed); Mohamed's F13 ratification 2026-08-29 and his sole authority over its text. Extension recorded during the v17 fold under revision rule 5b (ratified text a fold falsifies is re-opened via a named ADR).

Related ADRs

No other ADR is named in this record.

Rulings cited

None.

Specs cited

None (or no spec page exists for the ones named).