DECISION: [ADR-006] Fresh Start with Compliance-First Bootstrap
DATE: 2026-02-18
TYPE: 1 (irreversible)
STATUS: Accepted
SOLITON SCORE: 0.85

## Context

The existing Orxaq repository (v0.1-v0.43) accumulated 43 sprints of code
with the following compliance gaps:
- No Architecture Decision Records
- No hash-chained audit log
- No GitHub issues tracking work
- No branch protection or PR review trail
- Mixed concerns across directory structure
- Stale code in multiple abandoned branches

An examiner reviewing this repository would find no traceability from
requirements to design decisions to implementation to tests.

## Options Considered

### Option A: Incrementally Add Compliance to Existing Code
Pros: Preserves existing work, no history disruption.
Cons: Retroactive compliance documentation is unreliable — you cannot
accurately reconstruct decision rationale months after the fact.

### Option B: Fresh Repository (New Git Init)
Pros: Clean history, compliance from commit #1.
Cons: Loses all prior history, including useful learning artifacts.

### Option C: Fresh Branch, Archive Old Code (selected)
Pros: Old code preserved on archive/pre-bootstrap branch for reference.
Fresh compliance trail starts from this bootstrap. Best of both worlds.
Cons: Prior code is not directly reusable (different structure).

## Decision

Archive existing code to `archive/pre-bootstrap` branch. Bootstrap a fresh
compliance-first structure on `bootstrap/compliance-first-kernel` branch.
ADRs committed before any code.

## Rationale

Compliance is not retroactive. The only way to have a compliant history is
to build compliantly from the start. Archiving (not deleting) preserves the
learning artifacts from 43 sprints of prior work.

## Consequences

**Easier:** Every line of code has a traceable decision chain.
**Harder:** Useful code from prior sprints must be re-implemented (with ADRs).
