From e3699ebc890c9377a7b4b66b439b8587cf490892 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: codex Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 10:24:15 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?docs(canon):=20ADR-007=20migration=20ruled=20?= =?UTF-8?q?=E2=80=94=20option=202,=20live=20renumber=20list=20empty?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Verified: all five duplicated identifiers are finished, and no workplan in a live state shares an identifier. Option 2 therefore requires no renumbering today; historical duplicates stay, RAILIANCE-WP-0015 ambiguity included. Separates remediation from conformance: three shared prefixes remain in use across seven repos as single concurrently-allocated number lines. RAIL-BS- and RAILIANCE- are still growing, so the 0015/0016 collisions will recur at the next concurrent allocation. Prefix ownership assignment tracked as RMGR-WP-0004-T09 under decision 1, which option 2 does not exempt. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 --- ...kplan-identity-and-repo-worker-topology.md | 61 +++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/canon/architecture/adr-007-workplan-identity-and-repo-worker-topology.md b/canon/architecture/adr-007-workplan-identity-and-repo-worker-topology.md index af8c357..303ef6a 100644 --- a/canon/architecture/adr-007-workplan-identity-and-repo-worker-topology.md +++ b/canon/architecture/adr-007-workplan-identity-and-repo-worker-topology.md @@ -188,13 +188,62 @@ in increasing cost: `railiance-bootstrap`/`railiance-cluster` and `state-hub`'s legacy `CUST-WP-` files. Touches six repositories and every inbound reference. -Recommendation: **option 2**, with option 3's prefix split applied only to repos -that are still creating new workplans under a shared prefix — a shared prefix -that is still growing keeps generating new collisions, while a dormant one does -not. +**Ruled 2026-08-17: option 2.** Renumber live collisions; leave +`finished`/`archived` duplicates as historical record. -All five duplicated identifiers are currently `finished`, so no active work is -blocked by deferring this. +### The live renumber list is empty + +Verified against the fleet scan. All five duplicated identifiers are `finished`: + +```text +CUST-WP-0000 the-custodian ×2 finished +CUST-WP-0010 the-custodian ×2 finished +CUST-WP-0045 the-custodian ×2 finished +RAILIANCE-WP-0015 apps, platform finished +RAILIANCE-WP-0016 apps, platform ×2 finished +``` + +No workplan in a `proposed`, `ready`, `active`, `blocked`, or `backlog` state +shares an identifier with another. **Option 2 therefore requires no renumbering +today.** Historical duplicates stay, including the `RAILIANCE-WP-0015` ambiguity +between `railiance-apps` and `railiance-platform`; citations of it must name the +repository. + +### The structural cause is not historical + +Option 2 governs *remediation*. It does not exempt anything from decision 1, +which is accepted canon: one prefix, one repository, forward-only numbering. + +Three shared prefixes are still in use across seven repositories, and each is a +**single number line being allocated from concurrently**: + +```text +RAIL-BS-WP- bootstrap 8, 9 + cluster 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 + +RAILIANCE-WP- platform 5, 8-17 (16 twice — an internal duplicate) + apps 15, 16 <- already collided with platform + forge 2 + telemetry 1 + +CUST-WP- the-custodian 50 plans + state-hub 4 legacy plans (canonical prefix is STATE-WP) +``` + +`RAIL-BS-` and `RAILIANCE-` are actively growing — `RAIL-BS-WP-0014` (`ready`), +`RAILIANCE-WP-0002` (`ready`), `RAILIANCE-WP-0001` (`proposed`), all created +2026-08-11 or later. The `RAILIANCE-WP-0015`/`0016` collisions were not a +historical accident; they are what concurrent allocation from a shared sequence +produces, and it will recur at the next concurrent allocation. + +`CUST-` is dormant on the `state-hub` side — four legacy plans, one in +`backlog` — and needs no split, only a prefix-ownership assertion. + +**Consequence.** Prefix ownership must be assigned for all three shared prefixes +before the next workplan is created in the affected repositories. This is +forward conformance under decision 1, not migration, and is tracked as +`RMGR-WP-0004-T09`. Renaming the *historical* files is explicitly not required — +that would be option 3, which was rejected. ## References