{
  "$schema": "./decision-log-schema.json",
  "schemaVersion": "1.0.0",
  "logId": "DLOG-EXAMPLE-001",
  "title": "Cedar Vale Workshops scheduling decision log",
  "status": "maintained",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "dates": {
    "createdAt": "2026-07-10",
    "lastReviewedAt": "2026-08-01",
    "nextReviewAt": "2026-10-30"
  },
  "logOwnerId": "ROLE-LOG-OWNER",
  "owners": [
    {
      "id": "ROLE-LOG-OWNER",
      "role": "Decision log owner",
      "responsibility": "Maintains record quality, versions, and review cadence",
      "contactRef": "directory://role/log-owner"
    },
    {
      "id": "ROLE-PRODUCT-OWNER",
      "role": "Product decision owner",
      "responsibility": "Owns the selected fictional workflow behavior",
      "contactRef": "directory://role/product-owner"
    },
    {
      "id": "ROLE-OPERATIONS-OWNER",
      "role": "Operations owner",
      "responsibility": "Reviews workshop-request handling consequences",
      "contactRef": "directory://role/operations-owner"
    },
    {
      "id": "ROLE-REVIEWER",
      "role": "Decision reviewer",
      "responsibility": "Reviews evidence, consequences, and supersession records",
      "contactRef": "directory://role/decision-reviewer"
    }
  ],
  "scope": {
    "organization": "Cedar Vale Workshops",
    "decisionBoundary": "Scheduling-policy decisions for the fictional workshop-request workflow",
    "includedDecisionIds": ["DEC-001", "DEC-002", "DEC-003"],
    "excludedWork": [
      "Detailed architecture decision records and architecture rationale depth",
      "Approval workflow authority or an authority matrix",
      "Roadmap scoring, sequencing, or prioritization",
      "Change request approval or implementation authorization",
      "RAID risks, assumptions, issues, and dependencies",
      "Legal, security, privacy, compliance, and certification decisions"
    ]
  },
  "evidence": [
    {
      "id": "EVID-REQUEST-SAMPLE",
      "type": "research",
      "summary": "Fictional review of workshop requests showing that customers often provide a range rather than one exact time",
      "observedAt": "2026-07-11",
      "sourceRef": "evidence://example/research/request-sample",
      "ownerId": "ROLE-PRODUCT-OWNER"
    },
    {
      "id": "EVID-TIMEZONE-TEST",
      "type": "test-result",
      "summary": "Fictional validation test showing that an explicit time zone preserves the intended preference window",
      "observedAt": "2026-07-23",
      "sourceRef": "evidence://example/tests/timezone-window",
      "ownerId": "ROLE-PRODUCT-OWNER"
    },
    {
      "id": "EVID-OPS-REVIEW",
      "type": "stakeholder-input",
      "summary": "Fictional operations input that flexible ranges support manual scheduling review",
      "observedAt": "2026-07-24",
      "sourceRef": "evidence://example/input/operations-review",
      "ownerId": "ROLE-OPERATIONS-OWNER"
    },
    {
      "id": "EVID-NOTIFICATION-SCOPE",
      "type": "constraint",
      "summary": "Fictional first-release scope contains no authorized external notification provider",
      "observedAt": "2026-07-17",
      "sourceRef": "evidence://example/constraints/notification-scope",
      "ownerId": "ROLE-PRODUCT-OWNER"
    },
    {
      "id": "EVID-STATUS-TEST",
      "type": "test-result",
      "summary": "Fictional test showing that current request status remains visible in the signed-in workflow",
      "observedAt": "2026-07-18",
      "sourceRef": "evidence://example/tests/status-visibility",
      "ownerId": "ROLE-PRODUCT-OWNER"
    }
  ],
  "decisions": [
    {
      "id": "DEC-001",
      "sequence": 1,
      "title": "Store one exact requested start time",
      "status": "superseded",
      "context": "The first draft needed a small representation for customer scheduling preferences before operations review.",
      "options": [
        {
          "id": "OPT-001-EXACT",
          "label": "One exact requested start time",
          "summary": "Store one local date and time in the first draft",
          "tradeoffs": [
            "Uses a smaller record",
            "Hides scheduling flexibility and time-zone context"
          ]
        },
        {
          "id": "OPT-001-RANGE",
          "label": "Preference range with time zone",
          "summary": "Store a start and end preference with an explicit time zone",
          "tradeoffs": [
            "Preserves the stated scheduling window",
            "Requires additional fields and validation"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "evidenceIds": ["EVID-REQUEST-SAMPLE"],
      "selectedOptionId": "OPT-001-EXACT",
      "decision": "Store one exact requested start time in the first fictional draft.",
      "rationale": "The initial draft prioritized the smallest record while request evidence was incomplete.",
      "decidedAt": "2026-07-12",
      "decisionOwnerId": "ROLE-PRODUCT-OWNER",
      "consequences": {
        "expectedBenefits": ["Smaller first-draft scheduling record"],
        "acceptedCosts": ["Customer flexibility and time-zone intent may be lost"],
        "followUpActions": [
          {
            "id": "ACTION-REVIEW-TIME-RANGES",
            "description": "Review whether workshop requests need structured preference ranges",
            "ownerId": "ROLE-OPERATIONS-OWNER",
            "dueAt": "2026-07-24",
            "status": "complete",
            "evidenceRef": "evidence://example/actions/time-range-review"
          }
        ]
      },
      "review": {
        "reviewAt": "2026-07-25",
        "trigger": "New evidence shows that one exact time misrepresents common requests",
        "reviewerId": "ROLE-REVIEWER",
        "outcome": "supersede",
        "evidenceRef": "evidence://example/reviews/dec-001"
      },
      "supersession": {
        "supersedesDecisionIds": [],
        "supersededByDecisionId": "DEC-003",
        "reason": "Later evidence supports a preference range with an explicit time zone"
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "DEC-002",
      "sequence": 2,
      "title": "Keep first-release reminders inside the signed-in workflow",
      "status": "active",
      "context": "The first release needed a truthful reminder boundary without implying that an external email or messaging provider was configured.",
      "options": [
        {
          "id": "OPT-002-IN-APP",
          "label": "Signed-in workflow only",
          "summary": "Show current request status and review notes inside the signed-in workflow",
          "tradeoffs": [
            "Does not imply an unconfigured delivery path",
            "Requires the user to return to the workflow"
          ]
        },
        {
          "id": "OPT-002-EXTERNAL",
          "label": "External reminders",
          "summary": "Add external reminder delivery after separate provider setup and authorization",
          "tradeoffs": [
            "Can reach users outside the workflow",
            "Requires a provider, credentials, consent, retries, and delivery evidence"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "evidenceIds": ["EVID-NOTIFICATION-SCOPE", "EVID-STATUS-TEST"],
      "selectedOptionId": "OPT-002-IN-APP",
      "decision": "Keep reminders inside the signed-in fictional workflow for the first release boundary.",
      "rationale": "The reviewed scope contains no authorized external delivery path.",
      "decidedAt": "2026-07-18",
      "decisionOwnerId": "ROLE-PRODUCT-OWNER",
      "consequences": {
        "expectedBenefits": [
          "The workflow does not imply external delivery that was not configured"
        ],
        "acceptedCosts": ["Users must return to the signed-in workflow to see current status"],
        "followUpActions": [
          {
            "id": "ACTION-REVIEW-DELIVERY-PATH",
            "description": "Review whether an authorized external delivery path becomes necessary",
            "ownerId": "ROLE-PRODUCT-OWNER",
            "dueAt": "2026-09-15",
            "status": "open",
            "evidenceRef": "evidence://example/actions/delivery-path-review"
          }
        ]
      },
      "review": {
        "reviewAt": "2026-09-01",
        "trigger": "Review if a separately authorized provider and delivery evidence become available",
        "reviewerId": "ROLE-REVIEWER",
        "outcome": "pending",
        "evidenceRef": "evidence://example/reviews/dec-002"
      },
      "supersession": {
        "supersedesDecisionIds": [],
        "supersededByDecisionId": null,
        "reason": null
      }
    },
    {
      "id": "DEC-003",
      "sequence": 3,
      "title": "Store a preference range with an explicit time zone",
      "status": "active",
      "context": "The exact-time record from DEC-001 did not preserve the flexible window commonly expressed in the fictional request sample.",
      "options": [
        {
          "id": "OPT-003-KEEP-EXACT",
          "label": "Keep the exact time with a note",
          "summary": "Keep one exact time and add a free-text note for flexibility",
          "tradeoffs": ["Keeps fewer structured fields", "Leaves the scheduling window ambiguous"]
        },
        {
          "id": "OPT-003-RANGE",
          "label": "Preference range with time zone",
          "summary": "Store a start and end preference with an explicit IANA time-zone identifier",
          "tradeoffs": [
            "Makes the intended window reviewable",
            "Adds range and time-zone validation cases"
          ]
        }
      ],
      "evidenceIds": ["EVID-REQUEST-SAMPLE", "EVID-TIMEZONE-TEST", "EVID-OPS-REVIEW"],
      "selectedOptionId": "OPT-003-RANGE",
      "decision": "Store a start and end preference with an explicit time-zone identifier.",
      "rationale": "The structured range preserves customer intent and gives operations a reviewable window.",
      "decidedAt": "2026-07-25",
      "decisionOwnerId": "ROLE-PRODUCT-OWNER",
      "consequences": {
        "expectedBenefits": [
          "Preference flexibility remains explicit",
          "Time-zone intent remains part of the reviewed record"
        ],
        "acceptedCosts": [
          "The input and validation contract has additional fields",
          "Invalid range and time-zone cases require separate tests"
        ],
        "followUpActions": [
          {
            "id": "ACTION-ADD-RANGE-CASES",
            "description": "Add invalid-range and time-zone cases to the fictional acceptance record",
            "ownerId": "ROLE-PRODUCT-OWNER",
            "dueAt": "2026-08-08",
            "status": "open",
            "evidenceRef": "evidence://example/actions/range-cases"
          }
        ]
      },
      "review": {
        "reviewAt": "2026-10-01",
        "trigger": "Review after the first bounded set of fictional range-validation observations",
        "reviewerId": "ROLE-REVIEWER",
        "outcome": "pending",
        "evidenceRef": "evidence://example/reviews/dec-003"
      },
      "supersession": {
        "supersedesDecisionIds": ["DEC-001"],
        "supersededByDecisionId": null,
        "reason": "The reviewed range evidence replaces the smaller exact-time record"
      }
    }
  ],
  "maintenance": {
    "reviewCadenceDays": 90,
    "reviewTriggers": [
      "Material workflow change",
      "Decision owner or reviewer change",
      "New evidence contradicts an active decision",
      "A validation or review gap is found",
      "A later decision supersedes an active record"
    ],
    "versionHistory": [
      {
        "version": "1.0.0",
        "date": "2026-08-01",
        "editorId": "ROLE-LOG-OWNER",
        "summary": "Created the closed fictional decision log and reciprocal supersession example",
        "reviewed": false
      }
    ]
  },
  "boundaries": {
    "replacesArchitectureDecisionRecord": false,
    "grantsApprovalWorkflowAuthority": false,
    "prioritizesRoadmap": false,
    "authorizesChange": false,
    "ownsRaidRegister": false,
    "grantsCompliance": false,
    "guaranteesDecisionOutcome": false
  },
  "disclaimer": "This fictional record validates structure and references only. It does not verify evidence, establish authority, approve implementation, replace an architecture decision record, prioritize work, authorize change, grant compliance, or guarantee an outcome."
}