|
| 1 | +# ADR-028: Governance Approval Workflow Hardening |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +## Tag |
| 4 | +#adr_028 |
| 5 | + |
| 6 | +## Status |
| 7 | +Accepted |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +## Date |
| 10 | +2026-06-24 |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +## Scope |
| 13 | +ModularityKit.Mutator.Governance |
| 14 | + |
| 15 | +## Context |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +The governance package already implements the first approval workflow: |
| 18 | + |
| 19 | +- request-level approval requirements |
| 20 | +- ordered step execution |
| 21 | +- explicit approve and reject actions |
| 22 | +- approval history recorded through `MutationRequestDecision` |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +That first slice is functional, but it is too narrow for operational governance scenarios. |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +The main gaps are: |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +- approval targets are mostly modeled as individual actors |
| 29 | +- grouped approvals and quorum semantics are not first-class |
| 30 | +- approval expiration is not modeled independently from generic request expiration |
| 31 | +- rejection is recorded, but the business reason model is too thin |
| 32 | +- some failure paths still collapse into generic invalid-operation behavior |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +Without hardening, governance approval would remain present but not expressive enough for real multi-actor approval workflows. |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +## Decision |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +The governance package hardens approval workflow semantics in the following way: |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +- approval requirements may target: |
| 41 | + - a concrete approver id |
| 42 | + - an approver role |
| 43 | + - an approver group |
| 44 | +- approval requirements may participate in approval groups with explicit quorum semantics such as `N-of-M` |
| 45 | +- approval requirements may expire independently through approval-specific expiration timestamps |
| 46 | +- rejection may carry a structured `MutationApprovalRejectionReason` |
| 47 | +- approval-specific invalid states and invalid configurations should raise domain-specific approval exceptions |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +The request-centric governance model remains unchanged: |
| 50 | + |
| 51 | +- approvals are still attached to a `MutationRequest` |
| 52 | +- approval actions still resolve request-level approval requirements |
| 53 | +- approval outcomes still become request decision history |
| 54 | + |
| 55 | +Quorum behavior is modeled explicitly: |
| 56 | + |
| 57 | +- once a grouped approval reaches the required quorum |
| 58 | +- remaining pending approvals in that group become `Satisfied` |
| 59 | +- request history records a `QuorumSatisfied` approval decision |
| 60 | + |
| 61 | +Expiration behavior is also explicit: |
| 62 | + |
| 63 | +- expired approval requirements become `Expired` |
| 64 | +- expired approval sets reject the request through governance runtime |
| 65 | +- request history records approval expiration and terminal request rejection |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +## Design Rationale |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +- Governance approvals must support real organizational approval patterns, not only linear actor-by-actor sign-off. |
| 70 | +- Role and group targeting fits the existing `MutationContext` model without introducing a separate identity subsystem. |
| 71 | +- Quorum semantics belong in governance approval, not in the core mutation engine. |
| 72 | +- Structured rejection reasons make approval denial auditable and machine-readable. |
| 73 | +- Approval expiration should be explicit because an approval timeout is not the same business event as generic request expiration. |
| 74 | + |
| 75 | +## Consequences |
| 76 | + |
| 77 | +### Positive |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | +- Approval workflow now supports richer operational behavior without leaving the request-centric governance model. |
| 80 | +- Multi-actor and grouped approvals become first-class. |
| 81 | +- Approval denial and expiration become more auditable. |
| 82 | +- Governance runtime can represent approval completion without requiring every approver in a quorum set to act. |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | +### Negative |
| 85 | + |
| 86 | +- Approval model complexity increases. |
| 87 | +- Approval targeting now depends on agreed metadata conventions for actor roles and groups. |
| 88 | +- Future persistence providers will need to store richer approval state and rejection metadata. |
| 89 | + |
| 90 | +## Related ADRs |
| 91 | + |
| 92 | +- ADR-025: Governance Approval Workflow |
| 93 | +- ADR-027: Governed Execution Manager |
0 commit comments