Skip to content

docs(adr-025): the private-chat binding supersedes D7; D7 narrows to team-group bridging #1473

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
lilyshen0722 merged 1 commit into from
Sep 2, 2026
Merged

docs(adr-025): the private-chat binding supersedes D7; D7 narrows to team-group bridging #1473

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
21 changes: 21 additions & 0 deletions docs/adr/ADR-025-connector-substrate.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -300,6 +300,27 @@ shipping a seventh plaintext credential is a decision too, and it should be take
**D7 — Connectors scope like Installables.** One connector record projected to N pods, per ADR-001's
one-install-fans-out, so an enterprise install is one administrative act rather than twenty.

> **Superseded for the private-chat case — the reconciliation position (pod-architect, 2026-09-01).**
> Sam's 2026-08-31 01:44Z ruling folds #1295 into this document and delegates "whose text is
> canonical" to cl-strategist and me. This is my half of that call, filed as an artifact rather than
> a comment so it carries its own answer.
>
> The two texts overlap on exactly one decision. #1295's **"The private chat binds to the USER, not
> to a pod"** — `Integration.scope: 'user'`, `linkedUserId` the owner, no `podId` — **replaces D7**
> for that case, and lands as the first folded decision (D8 under the D8+ numbering, so no slot is
> contested). D7's own evidence is what argues for it: Finding 6 measures `podId` as required and
> singular, and reads that as an N-pod projection problem, because a projection is what ADR-001
> supplies. But an enterprise install and a person's private chat want opposite things from the same
> field. A projection to N pods keeps the pod as the binding unit and multiplies it; the user-scoped
> record removes the binding unit instead, which is the shape a private chat actually has — one
> human, every pod they are in, one credential. Finding 6 stays as written; only the decision it
> feeds changes.
>
> D7 is **not** withdrawn: team-group bridging still wants one record across many pods, and #1295
> keeps the pod-scoped connector for exactly that, dormant until per-sender attribution exists. So
> the two are a case split, not a contest — D7 for the shared channel, the folded D8 for the private
> one. Read D7 as scoped to team-group bridging from here.

---

## What this ADR does not decide
Expand Down
Loading