78 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
78 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
id: RMASTER-DEMAND-2026-08-18-001
|
|
type: demand-review
|
|
status: accepted
|
|
received: "2026-08-18"
|
|
reviewed: "2026-08-18"
|
|
reviewer: codex
|
|
source: operator
|
|
consumer: railiance-master maintainers and architecture consumers
|
|
resulting_workplan: RMASTER-WP-0024
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Review: align railiance-master with InfoTechCanon and policy-nexus
|
|
|
|
## Demand signal
|
|
|
|
Review and update the repository's intent and current scope against the newer
|
|
InfoTechCanon repository structure and `policy-nexus` authority model, then
|
|
identify and execute the obvious alignment work.
|
|
|
|
## Consumer purpose
|
|
|
|
Maintainers and downstream Railiance repositories need to tell, without
|
|
reconstructing context from multiple repos:
|
|
|
|
- what architecture this repository owns;
|
|
- which general concepts it imports from InfoTechCanon;
|
|
- which accepted records are policy sources;
|
|
- which responsibilities belong to the permanent publisher; and
|
|
- how inbound architecture requests become reviewed work.
|
|
|
|
## Purpose fit
|
|
|
|
**Strong fit.** `INTENT.md` already names this repository as the Railiance
|
|
framework architecture home. Clarifying semantic-canon, content-authority, and
|
|
publication boundaries strengthens that purpose without adding an implementation
|
|
layer.
|
|
|
|
## Scope pressure
|
|
|
|
The demand exposed three current-scope gaps rather than a request to broaden the
|
|
mission:
|
|
|
|
1. `INTENT.md` and `SCOPE.md` did not distinguish InfoTechCanon authority,
|
|
Railiance-specific authority, and `policy-nexus` publication.
|
|
2. Eight accepted ADRs were discovered by `policy-nexus` but lacked required
|
|
publication metadata and addressing.
|
|
3. The repo had no explicit pre-work intake, so State Hub messages could be
|
|
promoted to workplans without a durable purpose/scope review.
|
|
|
|
It also exposed housekeeping pressure: completed workplans remained in the
|
|
active retrieval directory despite a repository-specific archive convention.
|
|
|
|
## Evidence reviewed
|
|
|
|
- `INTENT.md`, `SCOPE.md`, `README.md`, and `.repo-classification.yaml`
|
|
- `docs/adr/ADR-0001` through `ADR-0008`
|
|
- `schemas/`, `tools/`, `workplans/`, and `history/`
|
|
- InfoTechCanon ITC-REPO-LAYOUT 0.1.0-RC1 and consumer review kit
|
|
- `policy-nexus/INTENT.md`, publication contract, and source inventory
|
|
|
|
## Disposition
|
|
|
|
**Accepted** as `RMASTER-WP-0024`.
|
|
|
|
The work belongs here because it changes the architecture repository's own
|
|
interfaces and source metadata. Downstream address selection and rendering are
|
|
routed to `policy-nexus`; the publisher does not edit the source records.
|
|
|
|
## Outcome
|
|
|
|
- Intent and scope authority boundaries were corrected.
|
|
- Repository-layout conformance became explicit and later advanced to `core`
|
|
through the reviewed demand intake demonstrated by this record.
|
|
- ADR source metadata became renderer-compatible; downstream publication remains
|
|
separately owned.
|
|
- Remaining alignment work is tracked in `RMASTER-WP-0024` rather than inferred
|
|
from the original request.
|