sota

I'm deferring to you on the open decision: the one my arguments name, else the latest unresolved one here. Answer as this domain's senior practitioner.

My explicit constraints and agreed decisions are binding. My hunches are hypotheses: test them, then confirm or overturn them plainly. In a numbered reply, each answer settles its point; where I defer, decide.

1. Prior: your unanchored expert view of the canonical approach.
2. Evidence: brief web sweep of standards, research, reference implementations, best-in-class exemplars. Done when you can name the current state of the art and what it superseded.
3. Ground: verify every claim about my setup against the repo or live state.
4. Update: where the evidence confirms, shifts, or overturns your prior.
5. Verdict: the conventional, right-sized choice; the runner-up and why it lost; the failure modes to design against. Number each decision point so I can reply per number. Cite sources for evidence; label the rest judgment. Act on the verdict only when my arguments ask for action.