Dave
awaiting choice
State · awaiting choice
52 decision records in decisions/ are proposed and none has a selected_by. The loop is at the choice step and the choice is Dave's. This is the protocol position; it says nothing about whether any scheduled automation is running.
Last observed run 2026-07-04 · records/automation-log.yawn
Where it goes
- moving · when Dave chooses on the next question, "One governing record per concept, lenses marked" · decision record
- orienting · if the ranked queue changes before a choice is made
- holding · if the choice is held rather than made
Source · records/yawn.bot-state.yawn at fbd066c
Speed run · 1× · every hour · default · status
What direction does this Yawn serve?
So that Dave stays flexible and agile with as much agency as possible, while the bills are paid and leverage is as high as it can be.
chosen · Dave, 2026-09-12 · recorded on his behalf in core/entity-and-coupling.yawn at fbd066c · reported upstream, not yet ratified in a record he wrote · correct it there
What is a purpose vector?When two records define the same thing (lacuna, the loop, the objective lifecycle, a promotion gate, a read order), does one of them govern, and does it say so?
Candidates
- A
Each concept has exactly one canonical record. A second record that restates it is merged into the first or removed; friendly names and alternate loop phrasings are dropped in favour of the technical one.
- B
Parallel definitions may coexist. No record is required to name another as canonical; readers reconcile drift themselves.
- Crecommended · attributed, no authority
Each concept has one canonical record. Any other record that restates or rephrases it must carry a typed pointer to the canon (same_as, derived_from, supersedes, or projection_of, as core/holarchy.yawn already defines) and must not contradict it. Friendly names and loop rephrasings are allowed only as marked lenses over the canon.
The decision record's options, names and descriptions only, with the attributed recommendation marked; choosing one here is Dave's proposal until he fills choice: in the record. Cost, risk, and proof_needed stay in the record.
The recommendation above is the bot's sealed prediction (2026-09-12, shown beside the candidates, so anchored). Propose or write to score it and check its reason.
Why it matters
core/orientation.yawn already says one model with non-canonical lenses, yet the corpus ships two lacuna definitions, a five-stage and a nine-stage objective lifecycle, and gate definitions that have drifted apart, so a reader cannot tell which binds. Once answered, a bot reading core/ inherits exactly one definition per concept, and a child Yawn that coins its own phrasing knows it must point at the canon rather than become a second one.
What you have put here
Open this question to answer it.