ADR-Series: Architectural Decision Records
The ADR-series provides explicit records of architectural decisions made in the design of the Cohesion Dynamics framework.
These papers document reasoning behind representational and structural choices, recording what alternatives were considered, what decisions were taken, and what trade-offs were accepted.
What the ADR-Series Establishes
The ADR-series provides:
- Records of assumptions considered
- Documentation of options evaluated
- Explicit statements of decisions taken
- Analysis of trade-offs accepted
- Rationale for representational choices
Goal: Record architectural rationale and design decisions; constrain the Cohesion Dynamics design space in a disciplined, auditable way.
Purpose and Role
The ADR-series serves as the memory of the programme’s design evolution. It ensures that:
- Design decisions are made explicitly, not implicitly
- Alternatives are evaluated before choices are made
- Future work doesn’t re-litigate settled questions
- The reasoning behind choices is preserved
- Trade-offs are acknowledged and documented
This makes the programme more disciplined and reviewable.
Papers
ADR-series papers will be added as architectural decisions are formalized and documented.
Currently, this series is in development. Check back for updates as architectural decisions are recorded.
Who Should Read This Series?
This series is for you if:
- You want to understand why specific design choices were made
- You are evaluating alternative approaches and want to see what was considered
- You want to verify that design decisions were made deliberately
- You are contributing to the programme and need to understand design constraints
This series is not:
- Introducing new mechanisms (see M-series for that)
- Providing foundations (see F-series for that)
- Making empirical claims (see E-series and P-series for that)
How to Evaluate ADR-Series Papers
Appropriate criticism:
- Whether alternatives were adequately considered
- Completeness of trade-off analysis
- Whether decisions are well-justified
- Clarity of reasoning
- Whether constraints are appropriately documented
Not appropriate:
- Criticizing decisions without proposing concrete alternatives
- Demanding that all possible options be evaluated
- Treating ADRs as theoretical claims rather than design records
Additional Resources
For context on how the ADR-series fits into the broader research programme, see the Research Programme page.
ADR papers inform and constrain work across all other series by making design choices explicit.