ADR-027 merged (#1399, 3edec50e) carrying the citation defect I blocked it on. Re-verified against origin/main just now, so this is about the merged text, not the PR.
1. Fabricated citation — ADR-027:272, in "Alternatives rejected":
Agent-as-transport (an agent that "watches Notion") — ADR-025 D2's rejection, same reasons […]
ADR-025 D2 is "Add a conversational outbound verb to the provider contract" (ADR-025:245). It rejects nothing. ADR-025 has no rejected-alternatives section at all — its headings are Context, Landscape, Proposed decisions, What this ADR does not decide, Open question for Sam. The reasons being borrowed do not exist at the cited location.
2. Mismatched inheritance — ADR-027:73:
D2 — Transport is kernel; judgment is agent (inherits ADR-025 D2).
Same D2. A provider-contract verb is not a transport/judgment split; nothing in ADR-025:245-251 establishes the inherited claim.
3. The dependency is on a Draft. ADR-025's status line reads Draft; ADR-027 is Proposed and inherits a decision from it in four places without flagging that. This is the hazard CLAUDE.md's ADR status discipline names directly — an unratified ADR loses to a ratified one, and leaving the dependency unmarked delegates the decision to whoever ratifies something adjacent next.
Checked and clean, so the fix is narrow: :174 (ADR-025 D6 shape — credentials as a reference, never the material) is accurate. :47 (ADR-025 D3) is imprecise rather than fabricated — D3 is about enumerating directions in the manifest, not about mapping tables versus read-time heuristics — worth a re-word, not a retraction.
Suggested fix: drop the borrowed rejection at :272 and state the reasons directly (they are sound on their own — an agent-as-transport binds rate limits to a seat's cadence, which ADR-027 already says in the same sentence); re-word or drop inherits ADR-025 D2 at :73; add a line to ADR-027's status noting the ADR-025 dependency is Draft.
Cross-ref: my block on #1399 at 925c2c47. The PR merged with the block outstanding — main requires 1 of 11 checks and no review, so a filed BLOCK does not gate. Filing here rather than on the merged PR so it has a lifecycle.
ADR-027 merged (#1399,
3edec50e) carrying the citation defect I blocked it on. Re-verified againstorigin/mainjust now, so this is about the merged text, not the PR.1. Fabricated citation —
ADR-027:272, in "Alternatives rejected":ADR-025 D2 is "Add a conversational outbound verb to the provider contract" (
ADR-025:245). It rejects nothing. ADR-025 has no rejected-alternatives section at all — its headings are Context, Landscape, Proposed decisions, What this ADR does not decide, Open question for Sam. The reasons being borrowed do not exist at the cited location.2. Mismatched inheritance —
ADR-027:73:Same D2. A provider-contract verb is not a transport/judgment split; nothing in
ADR-025:245-251establishes the inherited claim.3. The dependency is on a Draft. ADR-025's status line reads Draft; ADR-027 is Proposed and inherits a decision from it in four places without flagging that. This is the hazard CLAUDE.md's ADR status discipline names directly — an unratified ADR loses to a ratified one, and leaving the dependency unmarked delegates the decision to whoever ratifies something adjacent next.
Checked and clean, so the fix is narrow:
:174(ADR-025 D6 shape— credentials as a reference, never the material) is accurate.:47(ADR-025 D3) is imprecise rather than fabricated — D3 is about enumerating directions in the manifest, not about mapping tables versus read-time heuristics — worth a re-word, not a retraction.Suggested fix: drop the borrowed rejection at
:272and state the reasons directly (they are sound on their own — an agent-as-transport binds rate limits to a seat's cadence, which ADR-027 already says in the same sentence); re-word or dropinherits ADR-025 D2at:73; add a line to ADR-027's status noting the ADR-025 dependency is Draft.Cross-ref: my block on #1399 at
925c2c47. The PR merged with the block outstanding — main requires 1 of 11 checks and no review, so a filed BLOCK does not gate. Filing here rather than on the merged PR so it has a lifecycle.