architecture-decision-makinglisted

# Architecture Decision Making Produce a record that lets a later reader distinguish what was decided, why it was reasonable with the evidence then available, where it applies, and what would justify reconsidering it. The output can be a short rationale, a proposed ADR, a supported status transition, or a review finding; it need not be a new full ADR. ## Workflow 1. **Inspect the local decision practice.** Read relevant ADRs, their index, the repository template and status/approval policy, plus the code, issue or design evidence supplied for this decision. Reuse locations, IDs and terminology. Establish the affected scope, actual decision-maker, decision date if known, and whether the task is documentation, analysis or a change to an existing decision. Do not equate PR authorship or an ADR owner's name with authority to accept it. 2. **Choose proportionate record depth.** Consider external consumers, persistent data, organizational commitments, consequences, uncertainty and likely future readers, as well as reversal cost over a relevant adoption horizon. A local, easily reversed choice may need only a commit/issue rationale; a mandated ADR can still be short. Read [writing the record](references/writing-the-record.md) for the depth heuristic, evidence fields, compatibility evidence for Java-dependent choices and worked example. Do not classify a database or process boundary as irreversible merely from its name. 3. **Preserve the basis fo