# Contesting a resolved decision (interim convention)

STATE-WP-0097-T02. This is the response to activity-core's suggestion
ff7d2152-75dd-4a49-8dac-e0ebe7343039. State Hub has no `contested` decision
status and no `/decisions/{id}/contest` route, and it will not add them. State
Hub is in retirement. Decisions are file-first work records with repo-manager
as writer (RMGR-WP-0008). Who may contest a decision is a governance rule.
A first-class contest state belongs with the-custodian canon and repo-manager.
Until they adopt one, contests use the existing decision fields.

## When an owner may contest

Only an agent that a resolved decision names as owner or as affected may
contest it. The only grounds are its own checked-in charter: `INTENT.md`,
`SCOPE.md` or an ADR that excludes the assigned work. Preference and workload
are not grounds.

## Steps

1. **Contest.** The owner replies on the thread that relayed the decision:

   ```text
   CONTEST <decision_id>
   Charter: <repo>/<file>#<section>[, ...]
   Conflict: <one sentence>
   Suggested owner: <agent>        (optional)
   ```

   The owner does not start the assigned work while the contest is open.
2. **Re-resolve.** Only the founder or the original decider answers the
   contest. There are two outcomes:
   - *Confirm:* the decision stands. The owner amends its charter through an
     ADR in its own repo, then takes up the work.
   - *Re-assign:* the decider resolves a **new** decision. Its title or
     rationale says `supersedes <old decision id>`.
3. **Link.** The decider sets the old decision to `status: superseded` with
   `superseded_by: <new decision id>` (`PATCH /decisions/{old_id}`). Without
   this link the hub keeps showing the old decision as settled. Agents that
   relay it would then pass on the overturned assignment.
4. **Update work records.** Repos whose task blocks cite the old `decision_id`
   update the reference in their files. Fix-consistency propagates the
   change (C-41).

## Detection

C-43 (`decision-supersession-unlinked`, WARN) flags a resolved decision that
says `supersedes <id>` when the cited decision is not `superseded` with
`superseded_by` pointing back to it. The check reports to the repo that owns
the superseding decision's workplan. It does not fix anything: setting the link
stays a deliberate act of the decider.

There is no automatic detection of an open contest that nobody has answered.
A reply containing `CONTEST <id>` is an ordinary message until the decider acts
on it.

## Worked example (2026-10-13)

- 1c9817ee assigned the publish-grant publisher and its push credentials to
  activity-core.
- activity-core declined on thread 25824c97 (reply 5961c59d). Its INTENT
  excludes repository edits, execution and secret custody.
- The founder resolved c6f23433, "supersedes 1c9817ee", which assigns the
  publisher to rein-aharness.
- The link from 1c9817ee to c6f23433 was missing until set by hand. C-43 now
  catches this case.