# ADR-{NNN}: {decision-title}

- **Status**: {Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded}
- **Date**: {YYYY-MM-DD}
- **Deciders**: {user / project owner}
- **Supersedes**: {ADR-NNN | —}
- **Superseded by**: {ADR-NNN | —}

## Context

What problem does this decision address? Cite the relevant constraint(s), acceptance criterion / criteria, and risk(s) by ID.

- Acceptance criteria addressed: AC-{ID-1}, AC-{ID-2}
- Restrictions addressed: R-{ID-1}, R-{ID-2}
- Risks addressed: RISK-{ID-1}
- Research source (if any): `_docs/01_solution/solution_draftN.md` § {section}

A short paragraph (3–6 sentences) explaining why a choice is required now and what makes it non-trivial. Do not pre-announce the decision here — that goes in `Decision`. Focus on the forces at play (load, scale, team familiarity, hardware constraints, regulatory drivers, third-party limits).

## Decision

One declarative sentence: **"We will …"** Then 1–3 paragraphs of supporting detail explaining how the decision will be implemented at the boundaries between components.

Be specific. "We will use Postgres" is too thin; "We will use Postgres 16 with logical replication for read scaling, restricting JSONB columns to top-level metadata only, with all transactional data in normalized tables" is the right resolution.

## Alternatives Considered

| Alternative | Rejected because |
|-------------|------------------|
| {Alt 1 — short label} | {one line: the cost / mismatch / risk that ruled it out, ideally referencing a measurable criterion} |
| {Alt 2 — short label} | {one line} |
| {Alt 3 — short label} | {one line} |

At least one rejected alternative is mandatory. If only one option was ever considered, this is not an ADR — link to the source restriction or research selection from the parent doc instead.

## Consequences

### Positive

- {What becomes easier / cheaper / faster, with concrete examples where possible}
- {…}

### Negative

- {What becomes harder / locked in / costly to undo}
- {…}

Every real decision has both. If the negatives section is hard to fill, the alternatives were probably not weighed seriously — return to the prior step.

### Neutral / Open

- {What is unchanged but worth flagging for future readers (e.g., "this does not change the auth boundary; auth remains in component 02_user_management as decided in ADR-003")}

## Evidence

Where this decision is reflected on disk. Use `file:section` links so future readers can jump.

- `_docs/02_document/architecture.md` § {section}
- `_docs/02_document/data_model.md` § {section}
- `_docs/02_document/components/{##_name}/description.md` § {section}
- `_docs/02_document/system-flows.md` § {flow name}
- `_docs/02_document/deployment/{file}.md` § {section}
- {add more as needed}

## Notes

Optional. Use for caveats that did not fit above, links to external research, or follow-ups that the team agreed to revisit on a known trigger ("re-evaluate after 6 months in production" / "re-evaluate when load exceeds 10× baseline").
