bvandeusen
0f80b790c7
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 3s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 9s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 19s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Failing after 20s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 44s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Skipped
Last piece of the architecture in #2296. The operator: "the prose doesn't have to live as one offs, there's a central system for managing it." Two fields, both free-form: design_systems.guidance the narrative a token table cannot hold — aesthetic, voice and tone, what is deliberately out of scope. design_tokens.rationale WHY a token is this value, which is a different question from `purpose` (what it is FOR). "Success equals Moss, aligned by design" is a rationale; "page bg, deepest surface" is a purpose. Rules carry the first routinely and a token row had nowhere to put it. Free-form rather than a column per category, deliberately. A schema with `voice`, `aesthetic` and `scope` columns would bake one rulebook's table of contents into every install (rule #115), leaving the next install three empty columns and nowhere for what it actually cares about. Both nullable: a design system with no prose at all is complete, not a draft. `rationale` cascades like `purpose` — deepest non-empty wins — so an app overriding a colour keeps the family's reasoning rather than blanking it. Same argument as `supersedes`: the override was about the value, not the meaning. In the generated sheet the inline comment prefers `purpose` and falls back to `rationale`, so a token carrying only the why still says something instead of rendering bare.