001-F002: Rejected alternatives need explicit preservation

Thesis

The assessment question for this platform class is whether rejected alternatives remain reviewable alongside the selected action.

Classification

INFERENCE; confidence MODERATE; source quality: Public documentation supports system capabilities; alternative-path persistence remains a bounded research question.

Evidence

• S001-01
• S001-02
• S001-03
• S001-04

Reasoning

Raven can test whether rejected paths are preserved without claiming that the existing platform lacks them.

Counterevidence

Public documentation may already include adjacent governance, replay, automation or audit capabilities. This assessment does not treat non-disclosure as absence.

Limitations

This assessment is limited to public documentation and public-safe Raven research artifacts. The absence of public documentation does not establish the absence of capability. Customer-specific validation requires a bounded read-only pilot or an approved architecture review.

Conclusion

This finding is suitable for public review only as an evidence-bounded research question for Assessment 001.

Relevance to Raven

Raven may be useful where the organization needs a replayable, human-approved decision object above existing platform evidence.