C.32.ADA:5 - Archetypal Grounding

Developer-work readiness. A service architecture decision has strong candidate traceability and trade-off rationale, but the ADR only says “teams should use events”. ADA gives MethodAndWorkDockingAdequacy = 2 partiallyExpressedForDeclaredUse because the acting Systems, MethodDescription, expected structure effect, and readiness condition are not recoverable from the instruction. In this case the ADR also expressly requires accountable implementation under an exact assignment, so the absent assignment species/current occurrence and F.6 relation are additional attribution defects; a Work-only instruction would not require them. Any responsibility claim must cite its direct domain predicate or exact missing governor.

ADR-publication readiness. A manufacturing architecture decision is clear, but the trade-study memo omits status and supersession. ADA gives PublicationProjectionAdequacy = 2 partiallyExpressedForDeclaredUse and EvolutionAndReopenConditionAdequacy = 3 sufficientlyExpressedForDeclaredUse. The repair states the missing record-status and supersession assertions using C.32.ADR.

Architecture review. A method-family architecture decision has candidate options and Method instructions, but no declared architecture characteristics. ADA gives ArchitectureCharacteristicTradeoffAdequacy = 0 absent. The repair states the missing characteristic assertions using C.32.ACS and C.25 before review can judge the decision.

Governance enforcement. A toolchain-product correspondence decision depends on team and tool structures. ADA evaluates TransformerTransformedCorrespondenceAdequacy; if the correspondence refs are absent, the repair states the missing correspondence assertion using C.32.CONWAY before institutional governance can constrain Method use.