A record that narrows one clause of another has no shape in 0001, and one now exists in the tree

[iderex]

0001 fixes that a record is added or superseded and never edited in place, and it
names three edits that are not supersessions. None of them covers a later record
that narrows one clause of an earlier one while leaving the rest of it standing.

The evidence

The permitted edits, read out of the record that imposes the rule:

git rev-parse origin/main
ded6d1fcbd9ad65b5a04fbf58c0a7d0e34dd2c10
git show origin/main:docs/decisions/0001-decision-records.md | grep -n 'Three edits are not supersessions' -A6

and the test it gives for the third:

git show origin/main:docs/decisions/0001-decision-records.md | tr '\n' ' ' | tr -s ' ' | grep -o 'If the edit could be removed[^.]*\.'

So the pointer is allowed only where removing it would take no reason away, which
means the narrowing itself cannot live in the record it narrows.

The instance that raised it

0243 narrows the fourth of 0103's refused behaviours: a dependency that writes to
a log stays refused, and one that links a logging facade whose sink is absent
does not, on the condition that the core installs no logger. Everything else in
0103 - the worth test, the licence set, the other four grounds, the clause for a
standing requirement - is unchanged, so superseding it whole would discard five
things nobody argued with to move one.

What the tree carries as a result: 0103 keeps its own text, receives a pointer,
and a reader who does not follow that pointer reads its fourth behaviour one
clause wider than the rule in force. Nothing refuses that reader.

What this produces

A decision on which of these the format takes, recorded in docs/decisions/:

A Narrowed-by: NNNN line beside a Status: line, so that the pointer is a field
a reader cannot miss rather than a sentence in a section they may not reach.

A supersession that names the section it replaces, so 0103 becomes
superseded in part by NNNN and the part is named.

Neither, with the whole-record supersession accepted as the cost and 0243 rewritten
as a full replacement of 0103.

Done when

The record is in docs/decisions/, 0001 carries whatever the answer requires of
it, and the shape is applied to the one instance that exists, which is 0103 and
0243. 0001's own reversal condition already contemplates this: a record whose
subject does not fit its headings, twice.

[iderex]

The Narrowed-by: field, beside Status:. Not a partial supersession, and not a whole one.

Why not the other two

Whole supersession is the option the body already prices: five things nobody argued with are discarded to move one. It is also the option that gets worse with use - every later narrowing would restate a record in full, so the diff that matters is buried in a diff that does not, and the reader who wants to know what changed has to reconstruct it.

Partial supersession is closer, and it fails on the same point the issue is actually about. superseded in part tells a reader that something was narrowed without telling them what, so they still have to read both records end to end to find the clause. The defect here is not that the pointer is absent - 0103 already receives one. It is that following the pointer is optional and finding the clause is work. A status word that means "some of this is no longer true, work out which" does not fix either.

Why the field is the right shape

Status: stays Accepted on 0103, because 0103 is in force. It was narrowed, not replaced, and a status that says otherwise would be false in the direction that matters - a reader who concludes the record is spent stops applying four grounds that still hold.

The field sits in the header, where a reader lands before the prose, so the pointer stops being something they may or may not reach.

And it survives 0001's own rule rather than needing an exception carved for it. The test the body quotes allows a pointer where removing it would take no reason away. A Narrowed-by: line carries no argument at all - the narrowing and its reasoning live in 0243, where they belong. Remove the line and nothing is lost but the cross-reference, which is exactly what the test asks.

Two things the field has to do that the body does not say

It names the clause, not just the record. Narrowed-by: 0243 still leaves the reader diffing two records to find which of the five grounds moved. The whole complaint is that a reader takes the fourth behaviour one clause wider than the rule in force, so the clause identity is the payload and belongs in the field.

It is checked, in both directions. Every Narrowed-by: names a record that exists, and every record that narrows another is named by the record it narrows. Without that, the pointer rots the first time a record is renumbered or withdrawn, and it rots silently - which is the same class as the defect being fixed, one level up. This tree has met that class twice this week in other registers.

One thing worth saying about the reversal condition

0001 contemplates a reversal when a record's subject does not fit its headings twice. This is the first instance, not the second, so this decision is taken on its merits rather than under that clause. Worth noting because a later reader may find one instance and a decision and infer the condition fired.