Nine in-repo sites cite "ADR-0112 says the PRODUCER names the condition" — ADR-0112 does not say it, and the unqualified paraphrase was read as governing HTTP status

[os-zhuang]

Filed unassigned and unlabelled by the domain:cli seat (#6024), session 019siH5jDmk5hrayvfyojUqR, while verifying the fork resolution on PR #11731. ⛔ Not graded, not routed — a concrete measured defect goes to triage for both. (Filed unlabelled per .claude/agents/os-dev.md's rule that finding is for observation-class items; two devs flagged that rule to this seat today and both were right.)

Measured on origin/main

The phrase "the producer names the condition" does not occur in ADR-0112:

$ git grep -n -iE "producer names|names the condition" origin/main -- docs/adr/0112-error-code-vocabulary-and-ledger.md
(zero hits)

⛔ A zero is not a reading until the instrument is shown to produce a positive with a term independently known present — never a substring of the term under test. Reverse-check on the same file, terms taken from the ADR's own subject rather than from the phrase:

declaredCode -> 7 vocabulary -> 22 ledger -> 16

The instrument works over that file. The phrase is absent.

It lives in nine places, every one attributing it to ADR-0112:

site
packages/rest/src/error-response.ts:394
packages/rest/src/error-response.ts:871
packages/rest/src/analytics-filter-refusal-envelope.test.ts:405
packages/rest/src/rest-5xx-message-sanitization.test.ts:383
packages/rest/src/rest-5xx-status-passthrough.test.ts:218
packages/rest/src/rest-hook-refusal-code-parity.test.ts:346
packages/rest/src/rest-hook-refusal-status-passthrough.test.ts:384
packages/rest/src/rest-thrown-code-vocabulary.test.ts:253
packages/spec/src/shared/external-errors.ts:47

The substance is absent too, not only the wording

This is the part that matters, and it is why the card is not "fix a quote".

ADR-0112 is error-code-vocabulary-and-ledger, and every decision in it governs the semantic code: D2 renames the closed StandardErrorCode enum; D4 closes error.code at every door and opens declaredCode beside it as the author-authored channel (2026-08-16 and 2026-08-17 amendments, #9106 / #9232); D5 fixes one eventual location for the semantic code. HTTP status appears only as the thing a code derives from and the thing that lives on the transport.

Nothing in ADR-0112 rules on what HTTP status an UNDECLARED throw deserves.

As a paraphrase on the code axis the sentence is fair — D4's demote channel really does honour the producer's own spelling rather than discarding it, and error-response.ts:394's use ("a half-declaration is honoured for the half that was declared") is about a declared 5xx carrying no code, which is squarely the code axis. The defect is that it is written unqualified, as a general principle of the ADR, with no axis attached.

Why it is worth a card rather than a nit

The unqualified form was then read as governing status, and it nearly settled a contract question the wrong way.

#11684 records exactly two candidate rulings for "what status does an undeclared hook refusal deserve on /analytics/dataset/query", and names ADR-0112's "the producer names the condition" as the one arguing for 500. PR #11731's dispatch carried a binding stop: if both readings had live in-repo pins, land nothing. The fold survived only because the dev measured that the ADR does not say this — the fork dissolved instead of having to be picked.

Had the citation been believed, the honest outcome was a blocked card and a decision escalated to the maintainer on a premise that is not in the document.

⇒ Same class as #11032 (a doc comment citing ADR-0120 D4 for something D4's text did not say), which this lane closed today. Both are load-bearing citations to a governing document, both accurate about behaviour and inaccurate about the document, and in both cases the next reader takes the comment as the decision.

Not established here

• Whether the fix is to qualify the nine comments or to amend ADR-0112. If the maintainer's intent was always that the producer names the condition on both axes, the ADR is what is incomplete and the comments were reporting a real decision from somewhere else. ⛔ That is a governed-surface question (docs/adr/**) and is not this seat's to answer — and note the amendment route is a maintainer-merge path, not a code PR.
• Whether the packages/spec site (external-errors.ts:47) reads the same way as the eight in packages/rest — it was not examined line by line.
• Whether any other principle is attributed to ADR-0112 in the same unqualified way. Only this phrase was censused.
• Severity. ⛔ Not judged.

⚠️ Routing note for triage: eight sites are packages/rest and one is packages/spec, so this may want splitting, and the docs/adr/** half is governed either way.

Re-check

git grep -n -iE "producer names|names the condition" origin/main -- docs/adr/
git grep -n -iE "PRODUCER names the condition" origin/main -- '*.ts'
git grep -c -iE "declaredCode|vocabulary|ledger" origin/main -- docs/adr/0112-error-code-vocabulary-and-ledger.md

Related: #11684, #11683, PR #11731 (where this surfaced), #11032 (same class, closed), #11718, #11719.