> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://www.docs.forgeshipyard.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# How a Decision Gets Made

> A worked example, from the engineer's click to the signed decision.

export const AuditSignature = () => <Tooltip tip="A cryptographic proof that a specific person made a specific decision at a specific time, and it has not been altered since.">audit signature</Tooltip>;

export const VerificationLadder = () => <Tooltip tip="The ordered sequence of checks that runs on every AI output before it can become an authoritative decision, ending in human sign-off when required.">verification ladder</Tooltip>;

export const Abstention = () => <Tooltip tip="When the AI declines to answer because it is not confident enough. In Forge this is treated as a good behavior, not a failure.">abstention</Tooltip>;

export const Capability = () => <Tooltip tip="A named, versioned, rule-bound move the AI is allowed to make. The AI cannot invent new moves on the fly.">capability</Tooltip>;

<Note>
  **In plain terms:** Here is the whole life of one decision, start to finish.
  Suppose a yard is reviewing a fuel system layout for a new build, and wants to
  know whether it meets the current Coast Guard fuel-line clearance requirements.
</Note>

## The walkthrough

<Steps>
  <Step title="Trigger">
    The reviewing engineer opens the fuel system design and asks Forge for a
    "rule applicability assessment."
  </Step>

  <Step title="The system gathers what it needs">
    Forge pulls the relevant USCG sections, the current fuel-line geometry (as
    actual measurements, not guesses), the prior similar systems on this vessel
    class, and the yard's own internal standards.
  </Step>

  <Step title="It drafts a proposal">
    The AI drafts an assessment: which USCG sections apply, which measurements
    support the clearance claim, and which prior decisions on similar systems it
    is relying on as precedent.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Confidence check">
    If the AI is not confident enough (for example, it cannot find a measurement
    for a critical clearance), it **stops and asks** the engineer to supply the
    missing data. It does not guess. This is <Abstention /> working as intended.
  </Step>

  <Step title="The verification ladder runs, automatic checks first">
    The proposal then passes through an ordered set of checks. Fast, automatic checks
    establish the evidence first; human and external review enter where required.
    <VerificationLadder /> in action:

    | Gate | Question it asks                                           | What that means here                                        |
    | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- |
    | T1   | Does every claim cite a source or evidence object?         | Cite the USCG rule and the clearance measurement            |
    | T2   | Is the rule applicable to this vessel context?             | Confirm the rule fits this vessel, system, and jurisdiction |
    | T3   | Are assumptions explicit and confidence usable?            | Show what is known and what the assessment assumes          |
    | T4   | Does the numeric clearance cite a real measurement record? | Trace the number to the model and measured components       |
    | T5   | Does the responsible engineer approve?                     | Human engineering review                                    |
    | T6   | Is class or USCG review required and complete?             | External review where the decision requires it              |
    | T7   | Is the approved decision signed and recorded?              | Create the final accountable ledger record                  |
  </Step>

  <Step title="Decision signed">
    Once the responsible engineer approves, with class or USCG review included where
    required, T7 records the decision with an <AuditSignature />, preserving the full
    reasoning and evidence behind it.
  </Step>

  <Step title="Outcome observed">
    Months later, when the vessel is in production, the real outcome is captured.
    Did the assessment hold up during the USCG inspection? Did the clearance match
    the as-built measurement? That outcome becomes a learning signal for the next
    time.
  </Step>
</Steps>

## If any gate fails

If the proposal fails any gate, it simply does not become a decision. The failure
is logged with its reason, and the engineer sees exactly what was missing. Nothing
half-checked ever slips through.

## Why the order matters

Running the automatic checks first means most incomplete proposals are caught early,
before they consume engineering or external-review time. High-risk output requires
responsible-engineer review, and class or USCG review is included whenever the decision
requires external authority. The final gate records the approved result; it does not
replace those reviewers.