Loading Decision Continuity…

Single decision Author your basis

A decision worth
being able to explain.

Write what you approved and why. Preserve its source, compare a later version, and record what follows without losing the original reasoning.

Original scopeSeparate declarationsHuman outcomes
01Explain the approval

Scope, rationale and a fictional reviewer establish the original basis.

02Preserve the change

Enter a later source version. Requests and declared grants stay separate.

03Record what follows

A human outcome appends to history. The original remains inspectable.

New decision ＋ Repeated reassessment → Shared source impact →

Records stay in this browser and origin. Export to transfer history. Use fictional codes and synthetic material; do not enter identities or confidential evidence.

01 / Establish the original basis

What are you approving, and why?

Create an original synthetic approval. The baseline requests documents:read only; declared grants are entered independently. Nothing is authenticated or observed at runtime.

Use a precise title so another reviewer can identify the decision.
Assigned for this rehearsal only. This code is not proof of identity or consent.
Structured rule: request-remains-read-only. A later documents:write request warrants reassessment; grants are a separate fact.
Interpreted as UTC; must not be in the future.
Baseline declared grants · independent of the request
Import history Inspect, then restore

Choose a Decision Continuity JSON export, maximum 1 MiB. Nothing is uploaded. Inspection writes nothing; confirmation restores only a missing record and opens its workspace. Different existing history cannot be overwritten.

Synthetic technical demonstration. No live source checks, real access revocation, authentication, remote sharing or operational assurance.