Dashboard › institutional-transition-lab › Distillation
e846f1de-2766-471f-a1ac-c26ba64637d2["lore_tm_v1_ErYSeS88AKXpOL2KgHZdg9MY-uTEU7bY8OZ1nHhaptM"]
cases/review/oss-governance-adjudication-v1/fragments/opentofu-a2.json is a 333-line adjudication fragment with schema_version: 1, design_status: "performance_blinded_llm_assisted_source_adjudication", 1 reviewer, and 4 OpenTofu records in order: opentofu-github-issue-340, opentofu-github-pr-1010, opentofu-github-pr-1107, and opentofu-github-pr-1152.opencode-sol-opentofu-a2, with reviewer_type: "llm", model: "openai/gpt-5.6-sol", role: "source_adjudicator", and assistance "Source-first review of four frozen OpenTofu records".opentofu-github-issue-340 (https://github.com/opentofu/opentofu/issues/340) has decision: "accept" from luna_b, reviewer opencode-sol-opentofu-a2, and audited source IDs [body]; evidence bounds are files_listing_complete: null, patch_selection_truncated: false, patch_unavailable_count: 0, and source_text_truncated: false.opentofu-github-issue-340 rationale says the issue merely proposes enabling a repository discussion feature and supplies neither implementation nor organizational-rights change; its limitation says the frozen envelope has only the issue body and no issue-state, comment, closing, or implementation evidence showing whether GitHub Discussions was later enabled.opentofu-github-issue-340 claim evidence cites body quotes for record_class (“We could enable github discussions to have a sort of forum with minimal effort from the admin and great value to the community/maintainers.”), title (“Open up github discussions on this repo”), affected_scope (“Enable github discussions for this repo.”), and body_patch_relation (“### Summary”).opentofu-github-issue-340 final coding is record_class: "no_event", event_kind: null, title "Proposal to enable GitHub Discussions", no announced/effective dates, affected scope "opentofu/opentofu repository", body_patch_relation: "body_only", no power changes, confidence 0.98, and no ambiguity; graph revision uses basis luna_b with no added or removed edges.opentofu-github-pr-1010 (https://github.com/opentofu/opentofu/pull/1010) has decision: "accept" from luna_b, reviewer opencode-sol-opentofu-a2, and audited source IDs [body, pr_metadata, patch:0]; evidence bounds are files_listing_complete: true, patch_selection_truncated: false, patch_unavailable_count: 0, and source_text_truncated: false.opentofu-github-pr-1010 rationale says the merged meeting summary records TSC product decisions concerning the registry namespace and GA launch timing but neither alters organizational rights nor proves that the January GA release occurred; the body and sole changed-file patch consistently describe the summary. Its limitation says the frozen envelope covers the sole changed file without unavailable or truncated patch content but supplies no downstream release or implementation evidence.opentofu-github-pr-1010 claim evidence cites patch:0 for the GA release vote, event kind "Launch date of GA", title components "Changing default registry namespace to opentofu" and "Launch date of GA", and both affected-scope components; it cites body title "Add Technical Steering Committee Summary for 2023-12-11", pr_metadata merge timestamp "merged_at": "2023-12-14T10:19:23Z", and body/patch consistency through the body title and patch heading "## 2023-12-11".opentofu-github-pr-1010 final coding is record_class: "control_event", event_kind: "product", title "TSC summary covering registry namespace and GA launch decisions", announced_on: "2023-12-14", no effective date, affected scope "OpenTofu registry namespace and GA launch timing", body_patch_relation: "consistent", no power changes, confidence 0.98, and no ambiguity; graph revision uses basis luna_b with no added or removed edges.opentofu-github-pr-1107 (https://github.com/opentofu/opentofu/pull/1107) has decision: "accept" from luna_a, reviewer opencode-sol-opentofu-a2, and audited source IDs [body, pr_metadata, patch:0]; evidence bounds are files_listing_complete: true, patch_selection_truncated: false, patch_unavailable_count: 0, and source_text_truncated: false.opentofu-github-pr-1107 rationale says the body and selected patch consistently describe technical-preview product work on static evaluation, while the pull request is draft, closed, and unmerged and therefore establishes neither effective implementation nor an institutional-rights change.opentofu-github-pr-1107 evidence limitation says the frozen envelope supplies 1 selected patch for internal/command/apply.go while metadata reports 23 changed files; although the selected patch is marked untruncated and available, the envelope cannot support claims about all changed files, and metadata explicitly establishes the closed, unmerged status.opentofu-github-pr-1107 claim evidence cites body text "Current state of this work: Technical Preview. Most components should be functional, but may have unexpected bugs or limitations.", pr_metadata values "draft": true and "merged": false, body text describing the initial static-evaluation context, body title "Allow static evaluation of locals and variables for module sources and backends", and body/patch consistency through "This is the initial implementation of a static evaluation context" and c.GatherVariables(args.Vars).opentofu-github-pr-1107 contains an internal source-reference discrepancy: its announced_on claim evidence uses source_id: "record_metadata" with quote "published_on":"2024-01-11", but its source_audit.source_ids lists only body, pr_metadata, and patch:0.opentofu-github-pr-1107 final coding is record_class: "control_event", event_kind: "product", title "Allow static evaluation of locals and variables for module sources and backends", announced_on: "2024-01-11", no effective date, affected scope "module sources and backends", body_patch_relation: "consistent", no power changes, confidence 0.97, and ambiguity "The pull request is closed and unmerged, so implementation effectiveness is not shown."; graph revision uses basis luna_a with no added or removed edges.opentofu-github-pr-1152 (https://github.com/opentofu/opentofu/pull/1152) has decision: "accept" from luna_a, reviewer opencode-sol-opentofu-a2, and audited source IDs [body, pr_metadata, patch:0]; evidence bounds are files_listing_complete: true, patch_selection_truncated: false, patch_unavailable_count: 0, and source_text_truncated: false.opentofu-github-pr-1152 rationale says the merged patch adds repository documentation of the TSC’s stated authority and current membership, but the body indicates that the information had already been referenced elsewhere; it therefore documents existing governance rather than creating or transferring an organizational right or demonstrating a membership change.opentofu-github-pr-1152 evidence limitation says the frozen envelope covers the sole changed file with no unavailable or truncated patch, but does not identify when or how the documented TSC authority or membership originally took effect, so the documentation merge cannot be dated as the institutional change.opentofu-github-pr-1152 claim evidence cites body text "This information has been referenced in a few places, but it is good to have a clear description in the repo to help explain the issue flow and governance.", body title "Add details on who/what/why the TSC is and list of current members", patch text "The Technical Steering Committee is a group comprised of people from companies and projects backing OpenTofu.", and body/patch relation evidence from that title plus "The current members of the steering committee are:".opentofu-github-pr-1152 final coding is record_class: "no_event", event_kind: null, title "TSC governance summary added", no announced/effective dates, affected scope "OpenTofu Technical Steering Committee documentation", body_patch_relation: "consistent", no power changes, confidence 0.93, and ambiguity "The merged patch documents the TSC's existing decision authority and membership but does not show that organizational rights changed."; graph revision uses basis luna_a with no added or removed edges.