A plan and a log answer different questions
The 2 July standards-alignment pass moved the project plan’s change-log table into a dedicated history file. The plan retained a pointer to that record. This separated the question ‘what should happen now?’ from ‘how did the project reach this state?’
The historical rows were moved rather than recreated from memory. The record describes a conservation check, reflecting the aim of keeping earlier decisions available while reducing duplication.
Why duplicated history drifts
When the same update is copied into several control documents, each copy becomes another place that must be maintained. A later correction may reach one location and miss another. The project then offers different answers depending on which file a person or assistant opens first.
The single-log rule reduces that risk by assigning a home to history and using references elsewhere. Session handovers still serve a different purpose: they preserve the practical details needed to resume a piece of work.
Standards must reflect observed failures
The same pass corrected stale file-handling guidance. The documented write hazard concerned edits that grew a file; the old size-threshold explanation was no longer a reliable guide. Updating that wording mattered because an inaccurate safety rule can encourage precisely the action it is intended to prevent.
This is a modest maintenance change with a durable benefit. Clear control documents help later work start from the right state and the right constraints, without making a fresh reconstruction of the project necessary every time.
Evidence for this entry
This account is grounded in project records. Internal research and operational files are not published here.
What the records support
- Single-log alignment and correction of growth-triggered write-hazard guidance.