docs(adr): compress to 3 records in the domain-modeling format (#106)

Rewrite each record as a title plus one paragraph, dropping the
**Decision:** lead and the **Revisit trigger:** footer. No record was
dropped or merged: all three pass the admission test, so the numbering
and every citation are unchanged.

- 0001: fold the templates-reuse-the-chevron rule and the ALLOWED_COLORS
  gate into the paragraph; record the pytest bars' gold ramp as the one
  sanctioned exception to the single-gold inner.
- 0002: keep the empty-room threshold as the load-bearing reason, fold
  the borrow-audiences principle and the conditional backlink into one
  clause, and drop the reference to a tracking issue that no longer
  resolves.
- 0003: fold the redraw cost into the paragraph as the boundary of the
  decision.

Author: lesnik512

docs/adr/0001-project-marks-single-gold-inner.md

@@ -1,23 +1,11 @@
-# Project marks are two-colour, differentiated by symbol not colour
-
-**Decision:** Every per-project mark uses the constant green+gold snake frame with a single **gold**
-inner symbol. Projects are told apart by the *shape* of the inner symbol, never by colour. There is
-no per-family accent hue.
-
-While designing the per-project system we evaluated giving each of the four families its own accent
-colour for the inner symbol — a "Heritage" palette (dependency-injection = terracotta, templates =
-slate blue, microservices = plum, utilities = teal) and a brighter "Vivid" alternative. The research
-on comparable systems (JetBrains, Adobe, Astral) recommends two discriminators, shape **and**
-colour — but only because those marks must survive favicon sizes. Our project marks are
-large-format only; the org mark remains every repo's favicon.
-
-Rendered side by side, the per-family accent made each mark a **three-colour** object (green frame +
-gold frame + accent inner), which read as busy and diluted the org identity. Since favicon-size
-legibility is explicitly a non-goal, the second discriminator buys little. A single gold inner keeps
-every mark unmistakably part of one family, matches the brand palette exactly, and means a new repo
-needs only a new *shape*, not a new colour to keep harmonious. Templates get no symbol at all — they
-reuse the org chevron.
-
-**Revisit trigger:** the org needs these marks at favicon scale, so shape alone no longer
-disambiguates; or a family grows large enough that a colour band materially helps wayfinding on the
-org site.
+# Project marks are two-colour, differentiated by symbol, not colour
+
+Every project mark is the constant snake frame plus a single gold inner symbol, so repos are told
+apart by the shape of that symbol and never by a hue of their own. Per-family accent palettes were
+drawn and rejected: research on comparable systems recommends two discriminators, shape and colour,
+but only because those marks must survive favicon sizes, and ours are large-format only since the
+org mark stays every repo's favicon. Side by side the accent made each mark a three-colour object
+that read as busy and diluted the org identity, while one gold inner keeps the family coherent and
+means a new repo needs only a new shape. The two templates get no symbol at all and reuse the org
+chevron. `ALLOWED_COLORS` in `projects.py` holds the line; the pytest bars' four-step gold ramp is
+its one sanctioned exception.

docs/adr/0002-discussions-is-the-only-owned-channel.md

@@ -1,35 +1,12 @@
 # GitHub Discussions is the org's only owned channel
 
-**Decision:** Discussions is the org's sole owned support and feedback surface — org-level at
-`/orgs/modern-python/discussions` (backed by this repo, and where `SUPPORT.md` routes every
-project's users), plus per-repo tabs on the handful of repos with traffic to fill them. No Discord
-server, no Telegram group, and no per-repo tab enabled org-wide. When an *answerable* question
-arrives by any other route, it gets pushed to Discussions — "ask there so the next person finds it".
-
-Chat rooms were the obvious alternative and are the one most often asked for. The durable-record
-argument is the load-bearing reason against opening them now: a chat answer is ephemeral, while a
-Discussions answer is searchable and Google-indexed, so it compounds — it also serves everyone who
-later hits the same error. Async also suits a solo maintainer in one timezone.
-
-The stronger reason is the empty-room threshold. A young project's scarcest resource is the
-attention needed to seed a room, and an empty room is worse than no room: a visitor who lands on
-"3 members, last message 2 weeks ago" gets a worse signal than from a clean Discussions tab. The same
-arithmetic rejects enabling Discussions per-repo across all 28 repos — 20-odd empty tabs read as a
-dead org. The standing principle is to **borrow audiences before building our own**: participate
-where Python users already are rather than standing up rooms we cannot fill.
-
-If rooms ever open, the scope is one org-wide room per platform, never per-repo. The whole stack
-shares one community, and the only rationale that keeps two rooms coherent rather than fragmenting a
-small one is a language/geo split (Russian-speaking Telegram, English/global Discord).
-
-**Borrowing in practice:** a link back to our own pages is conditional, not standing. Link only
-where the linked page actually answers the question at hand (a docs page, or an existing Discussion),
-and never as a bare repo drop. The rejected alternative was a mandatory backlink on every reply: that
-turns participation into the drive-by self-promotion HN, Lobsters and r/Python each punish, and costs
-more standing than the referrals are worth. The obligation that *is* standing runs the other way,
-when a question answered in someone else's venue exposes a gap in our docs, that gap becomes an issue
-here.
-
-**Revisit trigger:** launch week (the work is tracked in modern-python/.github#58). Rooms open *during* it, not before — launch traffic is what seeds
-them past the empty-room threshold. If a room is still inactive 30 days post-launch, fold it back
-into Discussions rather than keeping a dead room linked.
+GitHub Discussions, org-level at `/orgs/modern-python/discussions` and backed by this repo, is the
+only community surface the org runs; `SUPPORT.md` routes every project's users there, and per-repo
+tabs stay off except where a repo has traffic to fill one. A Discord server or Telegram group is the
+alternative asked for most often, rejected on the empty-room threshold rather than on the durability
+of a searchable answer: the scarcest resource is the attention needed to seed a room, and "3
+members, last message 2 weeks ago" is a worse signal than a clean Discussions tab. The same
+arithmetic rejects enabling Discussions across all 28 repos. The standing principle is to borrow
+audiences before building our own, linking back only where the linked page answers the question at
+hand, never as a bare repo drop. If rooms ever open they open during launch week, one org-wide room
+per platform, never per-repo.

docs/adr/0003-flask-horn-historical-artwork-grant.md

@@ -1,14 +1,11 @@
 # The `modern-di-flask` horn is drawn from Flask's own logo path
 
-**Decision:** Two project marks are built from a partner's literal logo path, recoloured into our
-palette: `modern-di-faststream` (FastStream's) and `modern-di-flask` (Flask's horn). Every other
-integration cue is a redrawn evocation or, where there was nothing to redraw from, an invention.
-
-Flask is the one that needs a record. The permission we rely on is the **Flask Artwork License**,
-which explicitly allowed the logo "or a modified version" to be used to refer to the project. That
-license was dropped from the Pallets repo after Flask 1.0 and nothing replaced it, so today's Flask
-assets ship with no stated terms at all. The grant is historical, but it was explicit at the time we
-took it, and it is why the horn is a recolour rather than an evocation like its siblings.
-
-**Revisit trigger:** Pallets publishes restrictive artwork terms, or asks. The horn is one function
-in `symbols.py` to redraw.
+Two project marks are a partner's literal logo path recoloured into our palette, FastStream's mark
+and Flask's drinking horn; every other integration cue is a redrawn evocation or, where there was
+nothing to redraw from, an invention. Flask is the one that needs a record. The permission relied on
+is the Flask Artwork License, which explicitly allowed the logo "or a modified version" to be used
+to refer to the project. Pallets dropped that license from its repo after Flask 1.0 and replaced it
+with nothing, so today's Flask assets ship with no stated terms at all. The grant is historical, but
+it was explicit when the path was taken, and it is why this mark is a recolour rather than an
+evocation like its siblings. If Pallets publishes restrictive terms or asks, `flask_horn` in
+`symbols.py` is one function to redraw.