Ruling owed: whether every rewrite of the construal must carry a reframe record, which refines adr-55 and reaches rewrites no reading occasioned

Ruling owed: whether every rewrite of the construal must carry a reframe record, which refines adr-55 and reaches rewrites no reading occasioned

The record-discipline review of the Iteration 2 intents (2026-09-02) routed this question out of the reframe-record intent under the decompose-before-filing rule. That intent records a reframe occasioned by a reading, joined to the reading item, disposition or surprise that occasioned it, with the construal's committed hash before and after.

The open question is wider than a reading. adr-55 rules that the construal as it presently stands is committed record and that its history stays on the local side; the framing chapter says the section is rewritten by delivery like any other brief passage. If every rewrite of the construal, whatever occasioned it, must carry a reframe record, that is a standing rule over the brief and a lint over its edits, and it refines adr-55 by adding a committed pointer to an event whose content adr-55 keeps local. If only reading-occasioned rewrites carry one, the record shows which reframes a reading caused and nothing about the rest.

Either answer is defensible and the choice is the maintainer's: the first makes reframes countable at the cost of a rule on every construal edit; the second keeps adr-55 as it stands and leaves the researcher's own reframes unrecorded. The reframe intent takes the second reading until this is ruled.

A second, narrower question rides with it. adr-55 counts the framing section's statement, the glossary's committed terms and the committed scope as the construal as it presently stands; the reframe record keys on the construal section alone, so a rewrite of the glossary or of committed scope is not a reframe by its definition. Either the frame is ruled to be the construal section and adr-55's wording is narrowed to match, or the record hashes all three surfaces. The intent takes the first reading and flags it.

Grounds

• pursued: we expect a decision record adopted before the intent that waits on it to keep the trust rule out of the intent's scope list, which the decompose-before-filing rule requires; an intent shipping ahead of its ADR would show it wrong