ADR 0036 describes a fixed trial end date; the shipped copy uses a floor #84
Etiketter
Inga etiketter
area/backups
area/ci
area/control-panel
area/identity
area/infra
area/observability
area/payments
area/security
area/storage
area/web
blocked
needs-info
needs-triage
ready-for-implementation
type
bug
type
chore
type
docs
type
epic
type
feature
type
task
wontfix
Ingen milstolpe
Inget projekt
Inga tilldelade
1 deltagare
Notiser
Förfallodatum
Inget förfallodatum satt.
Beroenden
Inga beroenden satta
Referens
bitborg/bitborg-docs#84
Läser in…
Hänvisa till i nytt ärende
Ingen beskrivning angiven.
Ta bort grenen "%!s()"
Borttagning av en gren är permanent. Även om den borttagna grenen kan fortsätta existera en kort tid innan den faktiskt tas bort, kan det INTE ångras i de flesta fall. Vill du fortsätta?
ADR 0036 §3 describes the sign-up trial checkbox like this:
The shipped copy says something materially different.
signup.accountType.trial.noticeinbitborg-web/src/i18n/ui.tsreads:That is floor framing: 31 August is the earliest the trial can end, not the date it ends. The
implementation refined the decision and every other user-facing surface followed it — the
trial-terms page §2, the account panel, the accounts guide and the trial-end FAQ, in both
languages.
ui.tscarries a comment saying the floor framing is deliberate.So the copy is right and consistent; only the ADR still describes the earlier, harder wording.
Why this is worth fixing
The same drift had already reached the operator docs, where it was actively dangerous: the runbook
told an operator that an announced end date had passed, immediately before an irreversible,
capability-revoking batch. That was corrected in bitborg-infra#422, and bitborg-infra#270 records
the decision to hold the downgrade. The ADR is the remaining copy of the wrong claim, and it is the
document someone would reach for to check what was actually decided.
What to do
Amend ADR 0036 §3 to describe the floor framing as shipped, in the same style as the other
amendments in this repo — an amendment note rather than a silent rewrite, since the original
decision genuinely was the harder date and the change is worth being able to see.
Consider whether §5 ("Downgrade is an operator-triggered batch, not an automated dated job") should
also state explicitly that no date is scheduled at all, since that is the property that makes
holding safe.