docs(adr-0050): Decision 2 notes that the add-record open mode is no longer declared on addRecord (#24975)

Refs #24692

The ADR half of letter B′ (ruling record
[`6281834942`](#24692 (comment)),
item 5; seat-2 hold
[`6282077441`](#24692 (comment)):
"the ADR-0050 Decision 2 note is Tier H, as its own one-line PR"). The
spec half is PR #24970, which carries the card's closing keyword; this
PR closes nothing.

**Tier H.** The diff touches `docs/adr/**`, a governed surface, so this
PR lands only on an authorized APPROVED review (Prime Directive #14). It
stays draft until then. **Land it after PR #24970**: the note says
`addRecord.mode` / `addRecord.formView` *were* retired, which is true
only once that PR is on `main`.

## What changes

`docs/adr/0050-form-layout-vs-presentation.md`, one file, +4 / -1:

- **Decision 2** gains a dated note, placed as a blockquote inside list
item 2 (the numbering of items 3 and 4 is unchanged; checked by
rendering the file):
> **Note (2026-10-20, ruling record `6281834942`):** the list add-record
open mode is no longer declared on `addRecord` — `addRecord.mode` and
`addRecord.formView` were retired (ADR-0049 enforce-or-remove); the
create form is chosen by convention (`formViews.create` when declared,
else `form` / `formViews.default`), how it opens stays the renderer's,
and a per-list open mode, if ever wanted, is the list's existing
`navigation.mode`, never a second enum.
- **Status line** gains a `· **Amended** (2026-10-20, letter B′ …) — …
see the note under Decision 2.` segment, following the ADR-0069 /
ADR-0088 / ADR-0043 convention. The status stays `Proposed`.

The original decision text is not rewritten. The Context bullet and the
Non-goals line that also name `addRecord.mode` are left as written: they
record what was true when the ADR was proposed, and the Status line
points readers to the note.

## Acceptance notes

- No changeset. `docs/adr/**` publishes nothing, so this PR carries
`skip-changeset`.
- Gates at `fb75b6ae54`: `dispatch-gates.mjs --ran` reports 20 derived,
20 run, 0 not measured, each run with an exit code.
`check:doc-authoring`, `check:nul-bytes`, `check-adr-links` (+
`--self-test`), `check-adr-symbol-anchors` (+ `--self-test`),
`check:adr-anchors`, `check:pm-governed-merges`,
`check:pm-prior-rulings` and the other 11 all exited 0.
`check:doc-formula-expressions` first refused with exit 3 (a
prerequisite was not built, so nothing was measured). After building
`@objectstack/formula` and `@objectstack/lint` it exited 0.

## 维护者速读(草稿)

**改了什么**:ADR-0050 决策 2 下加一条带日期的注记,状态行加一段 Amended 指向它。原决策正文不动。

**为什么改**:裁决 B′ 退役了列表「新建记录」配置里的 `mode` / `formView`
两个键(声明了但渲染器从不执行)。ADR-0050 决策 2 原文还把 `addRecord.mode`
列为「表单在哪里打开」的承载者,不加注记的话,ADR 会指向一个已不存在的键。

**风险与代价(含回滚)**:纯文档,不影响运行时。须在 PR #24970 合入后再落地,否则注记先于事实。回滚:revert 本 PR
即可。

**席位意见**:

**你要做的**:PR #24970 合入后,对本 PR 给出批准(Approve)。

---
_Generated by [Claude
Code](https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6F9axfoPzR7t8G1J7Ytzz)_

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

Author: objectstack-fleet[bot]

docs/adr/0050-form-layout-vs-presentation.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # ADR-0050: Form layout vs presentation — split the overloaded `FormView.type`
 
-**Status**: Proposed (2026-06-15)
+**Status**: Proposed (2026-06-15) · **Amended** (2026-10-20, letter B′ on [#24692](https://github.com/objectstack-ai/objectstack/issues/24692), ruling record [`6281834942`](https://github.com/objectstack-ai/objectstack/issues/24692#issuecomment-6281834942), maintainer 「同意」) — the list add-record open mode is no longer declared on `addRecord`; see the note under Decision 2.
 **Deciders**: ObjectStack Protocol Architects
 **Builds on**: [ADR-0014](./0014-record-form-field-type.md) (record form field type), [ADR-0017](./0017-object-has-many-view.md) (object-bound views), [ADR-0049](./0049-no-unenforced-security-properties.md) (declared ≠ enforced discipline)
 **Consumers**: `@objectstack/spec` (`ui/view.zod.ts` `FormViewSchema`), `@object-ui/plugin-form` (`ObjectForm` + `TabbedForm`/`WizardForm`/`SplitForm`/`DrawerForm`/`ModalForm`), `@object-ui/app-shell` (`RecordFormPage`, `AppContent`, `useActionModal`), examples + templates form views.
@@ -40,6 +40,9 @@ So `drawer`/`modal`/`split` *as `FormView.type` values* are **redundant with —
 
 1. **`FormView.type` = layout only**: `z.enum(['simple','tabbed','wizard'])` (default `simple`).
 2. **Remove `drawer` / `modal` from `FormView.type`.** A form is *placed in* a drawer/modal by the **caller** (list `addRecord.mode`, `NavigationMode`, action `type:'modal'`), and the container renders an `ObjectForm` whose `type` is a *layout*. This makes "modal + tabbed" expressible — the whole point.
+
+   > **Note (2026-10-20, ruling record [`6281834942`](https://github.com/objectstack-ai/objectstack/issues/24692#issuecomment-6281834942)):** the list add-record open mode is no longer declared on `addRecord` — `addRecord.mode` and `addRecord.formView` were retired (ADR-0049 enforce-or-remove); the create form is chosen by convention (`formViews.create` when declared, else `form` / `formViews.default`), how it opens stays the renderer's, and a per-list open mode, if ever wanted, is the list's existing `navigation.mode`, never a second enum.
+
 3. **Remove `split` from `FormView.type`.** Master-detail is already `subforms` (single-record parent/child) + the list's `NavigationMode:'split'` (list+detail). A form-level `split` is a third, redundant spelling.
 4. **`ObjectForm` drops its `drawer`/`modal`/`split` branches** (`DrawerForm`/`ModalForm` become caller-supplied containers; `SplitForm` retires in favour of `subforms`). It keeps `simple`/`tabbed`/`wizard`.