Document begins
Two documents follow. The first is the working decision log exactly as it sits in the private repository: a header, an empty table, and a list of the five decisions the formation meeting was meant to record. The second is the steering-pack template it was cut from, whose worked example rows show the shape a real entry would take. Read together they show a governance mechanism that was designed with care — append-only, meeting-time, review-dated — and, in this repository at least, never filled in. An empty decision log next to a twenty-three-item choice map is a finding, not an omission to tidy away.
1. The working decision log (as committed)
Decision Log
Bottom Pub Co-op — Steering Committee | Stage 1: Gauging Interest Maintained by: [name] | Started: [date]
One row per committee decision. Append only — do not edit past entries. Every significant decision is logged at the meeting where it is made, not retrospectively.
| Date | Issue # | Decision | Approved by | Action owner | Due |
|---|
The five decisions the formation meeting must record (complete these rows at the meeting):
- Conflict-of-interest protocol adopted — approved by: full committee / action owner: convenor
- Steering seats confirmed (or vacant seats named with recruiting owner)
- Authorised [insolvency firm — name withheld] contact appointed — name and scope of authority recorded
- Public language sheet v1.0 adopted
- Decision log adopted — maintainer named
Pending decisions transferred from research register:
| Item | Source | Decision needed | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| What EOI threshold justifies proceeding to Stage 2? | Q-012 (research_questions_register.md) | Working group agrees a minimum signal threshold before commissioning feasibility work | Open — for working group at or after formation meeting |
These rows are completed at the meeting, not before it. This template is intentionally blank.
Filled-in copies of this log (with real names, dates, and decisions) are operational records. They must not be committed to the public git repository.
2. The steering-pack template it was cut from
The three rows in the “Log” table below are worked examples written before the first meeting, complete with [name] and 2026-05-[DD] placeholders. They describe what the drafter expected the first meeting to decide. They are not evidence that any of it was decided that way, or at all.
Decision Log
Bottom Pub Co-op — Steering Committee
Internal document | Maintained by: [name TBC] | Last updated: [date]
How to use this log
Every significant decision the steering committee makes goes in this log at the meeting where it is made — not retrospectively. “Significant” means: anything that commits the group to an action, assigns authority to a person, adopts a policy, or could be questioned later.
Small procedural calls (who chairs the next meeting, what time to break) do not need to be logged. If in doubt, log it.
Between meetings, if an urgent decision is made by email: record it here with the method noted as “email decision” and list who responded.
The log is a record, not a justification document. Keep entries factual and brief.
Log
| # | Date | Decision made | Who made it | Information it was based on | Who was consulted | Review date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 2026-05-[DD] | Steering committee membership confirmed. Named persons seated in the following roles: Convenor: [name]; Legal/governance: [name]; Hospitality/licensing: [name]; Heritage/building: [name]; Community engagement: [name]; Finance/modelling: [name]. Seat(s) vacant: [list or “none”]. | Full steering committee at first meeting | Conflict of interest declarations reviewed and on file. Volunteer list from 17 May 2026 community meeting. | All present members | Review if a member resigns or a conflict emerges |
| 002 | 2026-05-[DD] | [Name] appointed as the single authorised contact for [insolvency firm — name withheld]. Authority is limited to: making non-committal documented contact per the approved script (document 06), logging all communications, and reporting back to the committee. No authority to make offers, discuss price, or enter any agreement. | Full steering committee at first meeting | Conflict of interest declaration reviewed and no relevant conflict found. Workplan task 0.4 guidance. | All present members | If contact role needs to change, new decision required |
| 003 | 2026-05-[DD] | Public language sheet (document 05) adopted as binding standard for all steering committee members and anyone communicating on behalf of the project. | Full steering committee at first meeting | Language standards from workplans.md and CLAUDE.md project guidance. | All present members | Review if project stage changes |
Template for new entries
| # | Date | Decision made | Who made it | Information it was based on | Who was consulted | Review date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [next number] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | [State the decision clearly in one or two sentences. If it changes an earlier decision, reference the earlier decision number.] | [Full committee / subgroup / named individual with delegated authority] | [What information, documents, or advice was the decision based on? Label sources as FACT, ASSUMPTION, or professional advice as appropriate.] | [Who else was asked for input before the decision? “None” is acceptable for routine decisions.] | [Leave blank if no review needed. Enter a date if the decision should be revisited — e.g. when new information arrives, when a stream delivers its output, or after a set period.] |
Decisions that always require a review date
- Any decision made on the basis of an ASSUMPTION (set review date to when the assumption will be verified)
- Any decision that delegates authority to an individual (set review date to next meeting)
- Any decision about what to tell the public (set review date to when the underlying information changes)
- Any decision to spend money (set review date to when the expenditure is complete and accounted for)
Revisions
If a decision is later changed or superseded, do not delete the original entry. Add a new entry referencing the number of the original decision.
Example: “Decision 007 supersedes decision 003 in relation to [specific point]. [Decision 003] remains accurate in all other respects.”