Our own record
The decision record.
Every time a rule of ours is overturned, this page gets the ruling: who decided, on what date, why, and which rules it does not loosen. It is the same artifact Step 02 installs in a client’s practice, kept on ourselves first.
What counts as an overturn: a standing rule — from the founding brief, the working handoff, or an earlier entry’s own boundary — reversed by a recorded ruling. Entries are restated in English from the register in the repository. Client identifiers and commercial terms are left out, and each entry says so where it matters.
-
The contact form goes live
- The rule overturned
- Forms ship as placeholders and never connect to a real backend; contact is a plain email link.
- Who ruled
- Ben Zhou, the founder, in the working session, in writing.
- Why it had to move
- The site’s goal had been set in one sentence: a visitor who is convinced should be able to reach us. Measured that day, every exit was closed — the form disabled, the email alias unconfirmed, sharing switched off. The rule’s intent was never to keep the door shut; it was to never show a control that pretends to work. That intent survives: the form posts to a real service, and until a test submission is confirmed end to end, the page says so where the form is.
- What it does not loosen
- No invented facts, no fake testimonials, no borrowed logos. Anything unverified stays visibly marked.
-
A client’s public site may be shown
- The rule overturned
- Client work is described without naming or linking anyone — “built for a licensed immigration consultancy” and no more.
- Who ruled
- Ben Zhou, after the client approved being shown.
- Why it had to move
- The rule existed to protect the client’s wishes, not as a value of its own. The client’s approval removed its premise, and a rule that outlives its premise is drag, not protection.
- What it does not loosen
- The client’s licence number, commercial terms and any case detail stay off this site. Election-related details never appear.
-
Pushes stop waiting for a per-push order
- The rule overturned
- Every push to the live site waits for an explicit order from the founder.
- Who ruled
- Ben Zhou.
- Why it had to move
- The rule assumed review happens before publishing, on the diff. The founder moved review to the finished page instead — the live site is the thing he actually judges. The cost, that rolling back now means publishing again, was named and accepted in the same ruling.
- What it does not loosen
- Domain, DNS, credential and deletion actions still wait for an explicit order. Every commit still names its files one by one.
-
The client may be named
- The rule overturned
- Entry 002’s own boundary: the practice itself stays unnamed.
- Who ruled
- Ben Zhou.
- Why it had to move
- 002 assumed the product had a public site separate from the practice. Measured, they are one site, carrying the practice’s name on every page — so “show the site but never the name” described nothing that could exist. With the client’s approval already on record, the ruling split the boundary: the name and the site, yes; the rest, still no. The cover screenshot is deliberately taken from an inner page, because the front page puts more than one of the still-forbidden items in a single frame.
- What it does not loosen
- The licence number, the individuals who hold licences, fee terms and case details. No other client is named by this entry; each needs its own approval.
This is what Step 02 leaves behind in your practice: a page whoever asks can be handed. The rest of the site shows the rules it belongs to.