Read the answers that landed rather than the questions they replaced

docs/promotion.md

@@ -37,10 +37,25 @@ board is the GNU General Public License version 3, so that is what the code
 carries out and the receiving side inherits terms rather than finding none.
 This repository declares the same licence to the checks that read one, and
 [docs/decisions/0018-the-licence-of-this-board.md](docs/decisions/0018-the-licence-of-this-board.md)
-is the answer both of them come from. Entry three of issue #46 asks who may
-place a contributor's work under another board's terms and carries no answer,
-so a hand-over of somebody else's work still cannot be completed, and writing
-anything else into this line would be inventing permission nobody gave.
+is the answer both of them come from.
+
+The contributor's consent, where the receiving board's terms differ from that
+licence.
+[docs/decisions/0020-consent-to-promote-under-other-terms.md](decisions/0020-consent-to-promote-under-other-terms.md)
+decides that a result leaves under different terms only with the contributor's
+explicit consent, given at promotion time rather than agreed in advance, and
+written as a `Consent:` line in the promotion section naming who consented and
+the terms they consented to. A hand-over resting on a conversation is one
+nobody can check afterwards, and the moment it gets checked is the worst one
+there is. Where the receiving board carries the same licence there is nothing
+to consent to and this item is not asked for.
+
+Nothing in this repository refuses a promotion section that names no consent.
+The check that reads the section holds it to the four things record `0005`
+names, and adding a fifth is a change to the record format that goes through
+[docs/decisions/0013-how-the-record-format-changes.md](decisions/0013-how-the-record-format-changes.md).
+Record `0020` says as much of itself, and what stands behind this item until
+that lands is whoever does the hand-over and whoever reads the change.
 
 What would have to change for this to be production code, written by whoever
 did the work. They know and nobody else does. An experiment is allowed to cut

docs/supply-chain.md

@@ -120,10 +120,12 @@ person follows here and no machine enforces it.
 `project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0`
 
 Accepted, and outside this repository's control. The check counts the
-organisations that the accounts contributing here belong to. Nothing a change in
-this tree can do moves it, and whether this board takes contributions from
-outside at all is an open question on issue #46 rather than something to score
-against.
+organisations that the accounts contributing here belong to, which the line
+above says is none. Nothing a change in this tree can do moves it, and who may
+contribute here is answered rather than open:
+`docs/decisions/0024-who-may-run-an-experiment-here.md` decides that this board
+takes experiments from anybody. An open door and a count of organisations are
+different things, and only the second is scored.
 
 ### Dangerous-Workflow, 10
 
@@ -204,10 +206,13 @@ rather than a finding. It will start reporting on its own.
 
 `packaging workflow not detected`
 
-Did not apply, and whether it ever should is an open question. Entry four on
-issue #46 asks whether this board publishes downloadable artefacts at all. If the
-answer is no, this check stays at `-1` permanently and that is the correct
-outcome rather than a gap.
+Did not apply, and the question this row rested on is answered.
+`docs/decisions/0021-what-this-board-publishes.md` decides that this board
+publishes downloadable artefacts and that they are signed, so the outcome this
+row used to name as correct - a permanent `-1` because nothing is ever
+published - is not available. What the check looks for is a packaging workflow,
+which a workflow publishing a release is not necessarily, so re-read this row
+against a scored run once a release exists rather than predicting it here.
 
 ### Pinned-Dependencies, 10
 
@@ -270,8 +275,10 @@ the deduction stays.
 `no releases found`
 
 Did not apply, and it cannot pass until there are releases. Accepted now, reopened
-by the release milestone. Whether artefacts are published and whether they are
-signed are both entry four on issue #46.
+by the release milestone. Both halves are decided rather than open:
+`docs/decisions/0021-what-this-board-publishes.md` says this board publishes
+downloadable artefacts and that they are signed, so what this row waits on is a
+release rather than an answer.
 
 ### Token-Permissions, 10