Should linking a decision to its motivating issue be a `layering` warning?

Gap: issue-40d1792bc9f9 Blocking: yes · Rank: 6 · Asked: 2026-07-26 · Answered: 2026-07-27 Authority: repo maintainer (directed the work; the question itself was never answered separately, so this was implemented on the recorded assumption below and is open to reversal)

Question¶

In the default software profile, linking a decision to the issue that motivated it produces a permanent layering violation (decision level 3 → issue level 1). Is that intended discouragement, or should the layering check apply only to dependency kinds rather than to every kind except supersedes/contradicts?

What the system does today¶

OBSERVED: adr-0001 related: [issue-0003] → "layering violation: decision 'adr-0001' depends on lower-level issue 'issue-0003'". This is the pairing shown in the README's own quickstart output (README:78-81). Evidence: profiles.py:26-27/44-46, graph_checks.py:194-223, :26.

Proposed answer¶

Restrict the check to depends_on (and refines). relates_to is the default kind applied to every bare id and asserts no dependency, so it should not be a layering signal.

Why it matters¶

Compounds issue-9adf57138ea1: it guarantees a finding on the most natural modelling, which trains users to ignore check output entirely.

Answer¶

Implemented as proposed: the layering check now reads a dependency allowlist (depends_on, refines) instead of exempting supersedes/contradicts. relates_to — the kind every bare id becomes — no longer produces a violation, so the README quickstart pairing is clean. implements was also excluded, which the question did not ask about: it points implementation -> spec by nature and its direction carries no dependency claim. See issue-40d1792bc9f9 resolution.

Assumption if unanswered¶

WAS: the exempt-kind list is inverted and should be a dependency-kind allowlist. Acted on rather than answered — if the intent was in fact discouragement, this is the change to revert.

---

Migrated from the discovery question queue (Q-006); the queue itself now lives in this store.