Canonical Decision Register¶

02.900.030 v20261001.001

Record major canonical decisions affecting the Alescent Body of Knowledge, Alescent Strategic Framework, terminology, governance, authority, and derivative use.

Decisions¶

Date: 2026-10-01 Decision: Adopt Inter as the single Alescent brand typeface family across Office documents, workbooks, presentations, web, generated PDFs and diagrams; use weights and sizes for hierarchy. Rationale: Eliminate conflicting medium-specific font defaults and simplify maintenance and derivative generation. Decision owner: named participant Scope: Visual Identity governs; publishing and artifact profiles implement it. Century Gothic, Eras and Montserrat are legacy choices. Disclosed availability fallbacks and functional monospace/glyph exceptions do not establish alternative brand families. Existing issued artifacts and prescribed external templates are preserved unless revision is authorized. Status: accepted for implementation
Date: 2026-07-28 Decision: Adopt the Alescent Body of Knowledge (ABoK) as the umbrella Alescent knowledge system, retain the Alescent Strategic Framework as its principal organizing Framework, retain Alescent Canon as the authoritative subset, and retain the Alescent Legal Framework as a distinct operative framework. Rationale: The architecture distinguishes the complete institutional and applied knowledge corpus from authoritative content, provides governed places for Libraries, Source Material, Perspectives, and derivative assets, preserves the legal operability of agreements and schedules, and improves external intelligibility without weakening canonical control. Related decision: Adopt the Value Realization Body of Knowledge (VRBoK) as the portable and generalized upstream knowledge system. CRB: CRB-037 Status: accepted for implementation
Date: 2026-07-28 Decision: Use Canon and canonical as authority designations rather than as indiscriminate names for every repository or knowledge artifact. Rationale: Repository inclusion, Library placement, publication, or repetition does not establish controlling authority. Authority and lifecycle status must be explicit or governed. Status: accepted for implementation
Date: 2026-07-28 Decision: Use Canonical Review Backlog as the reader-facing name while preserving the CRB acronym, document ID, and existing repository path during the initial migration. Rationale: The revised name clarifies that the backlog reviews matters for possible canonical adoption while avoiding unnecessary link, build, automation, and integration breakage. Status: accepted for implementation
Date: 2026-06-03 Decision: Create Alescent Strategic Framework rather than a top-level 00. Alescent Canon. Rationale: Preserve the two-part structure of portable Value Realization doctrine and Alescent-specific doctrine. Status: accepted
Date: 2026-06-03 Decision: Use 030. Applied Value Library as the home for Patterns, Practices, Products, Platforms, Playbooks, Proof, and performance measures. Rationale: The Library is broader than Patterns and Practices and should support intellectual-asset management without treating every asset as a Product. Status: accepted
Date: 2026-06-03 Decision: Combine assessments and cases or evidence under 070. Proof. Rationale: These are evidence assets used to substantiate Value Realization. Status: accepted
Date: 2026-06-03 Decision: Add 080. Performance Measures to the Applied Value Library. Rationale: Measures, KPIs, objectives, targets, indicators, and thresholds need a curated home tied to customer Priorities and Value Realization evidence. Status: accepted
Date: 2026-06-03 Decision: Use Semantic Model as the parent concept while preserving Taxonomy, Controlled Vocabulary, Ontology, Rules, Inference, and LLM Instructions as subcomponents. Rationale: Taxonomy alone is too narrow for LLM-oriented knowledge governance. Status: accepted
Date: 2026-06-03 Decision: Use repository-governed YAML as the initial Applied Value Library source of truth, with generated CSV indexes and future database readiness. Rationale: YAML supports version control, review, portability, and LLM ingestion; a database can be introduced when workflow or application integration requires it. Status: accepted

Open Decisions¶

Date: 2026-07-22 Decision: Treat the Platform Value Multiplier as a calculated output of Comparative Platform Value Efficiency, not as an independent universal performance measure; keep the Platform Value Enablement Score as a non-financial companion profile. Rationale: A ratio is defensible only where alternatives use commensurate value and Investment bases. A weighted score can support decision quality but cannot be converted mechanically into financial value. Status: proposed pending review and merge
Date: 2026-07-22 Decision: Retain Projects Domain as the canonical Domain name while treating Project, Program, Portfolio, and Initiative as distinct governed work objects; keep Engagement and Assignment as Alescent applied or legal constructs. Rationale: The Domain requires a broad work-object scope without collapsing distinct constructs or allowing applied commercial terms to redefine portable doctrine. Status: proposed pending review and merge