Decision rules

The choice to grade: $ARGUMENTS

The doctrine is PHILOSOPHY.md and it is not repeated here. Read § V (the nine questions) every time. Read § IV (the standing adjudications) only when two goods are in tension, and § VII (the four tiers) only when the answer is going into a document.

Stop within 15 tool calls and return what you have.

Run it

Short run — adding an option, coining a noun, the code and a document disagreeing. Answer four of § V's questions, one line each: 1 origin, 5 derived, 6 owner, 9 silence. Those are the ones nobody reaches for on their own. Add any other question the choice plainly fails.

Full run — choosing between two designs, or writing a ruling or an IDEAS/ proposal. Answer all nine, one line each, then name the § IV adjudication (or write that none is in tension) and the § VII tier.

The ninth is TWO answers. What must stay true, then what fails when it stops — a test, a snapshot, a CI phase, a refusal at the boundary. none is a permitted answer and records the invariant as unenforced; an artefact left implied is not.

The owner question asks where the owner IS before how many there are. A second implementation beside an existing owner breaks Invariants 4 and 5 while answering exactly one owner truthfully about itself. bridge-index lists the owners that exist.

Read the § IV row you name before leaning on it. Reaching for a neighboring row is the failure mode: familiarity vs. precision is about the ecosystem's habits and was cited to keep an existing command name, which is preservation vs. evolution, the row with the opposite answer.

Return

At most 25 lines:

• Verdict — passes, fails a question (change the proposal, not the answer), or should land anyway (a ruling: the FJS-D## names the question it overrides).
• The answers, one line each, and the adjudication and tier on a full run.
• Late — say so when the code was built before this ran; answers written after the code is green are a defense, not a decision.

Where two proposals both pass, the tiebreak is six months out: the one that lets a developer predict more from less knowledge.

Recommending

Only when the output is a recommendation on a question for the owner.

• Match a sibling that already decided the same shape, from the question's own domain. Precedent outranks both the stricter design and the simpler one. FJS-D1196 lost on an infra precedent where the app's own domain decided it.
• With no precedent, recommend what moves fewer callers and adds no convention, and name the stricter option as the reopen path.
• For a third party or a product, cite how two or three real products answer it, with sources. Naming, Dependencies, Mesa and product papers miss most.
• State a confidence (1–3).

When the code disagrees

Hold a hearing, then either fix the code or amend the doctrine, in writing. An undocumented divergence is the failure both directions share.