Reconcile code-review.md's finding-ID convention with the ID schemes in use (CR-/DOC-/TECH-, F-P4-OPUS, F-P8-C) #923

Deferred work · F-PR29-A8-16 · severity Low · cost ~1-2 h · recorded in docs/roadmap/risks-and-decisions.md:93

Summary

docs/standards/code-review.md defines exactly two canonical finding-ID forms, but later review cycles introduced F-P4-OPUS-NN and F-P8-C-NN, and CONTRIBUTING.md, the pull-request template and code-review.md itself now tell contributors to quote the backlog's CR- / DOC- / TECH- IDs, which the convention never mentions. The row was recorded as a rolling enforcement target with no guard and no exit criterion.

Condition or budget

None recorded ("rolling").

State today (re-checked 2026-10-09)

The convention table lists two forms; the newer schemes appear in the tree and in the contributor documents.

Related

#712 (strip IDs from code comments) is related, not the same change.

Acceptance criteria

• The convention covers every ID form in use (or states each one's scope), decides whether enforcement is wanted, and the row gets an exit criterion or is closed.
• The row is removed from the deferral table and the CHANGELOG names its ID (the table's removal contract).

_{Recorded in docs/roadmap/risks-and-decisions.md (read at f94595f) and re-checked against the code on 2026-10-09. The row leaves that table only when the fix is on main, the CHANGELOG names its ID and any promised guard exists.}