propagate-design-change

To identify affected architecture decisions from a game design document revision, compare the current and previous Git versions of the GDD to summarize changed sections, then review referenced ADRs to classify each decision as valid, needing review, or likely superseded.

Maintaining architecture traceability when game design rules change requires analyzing GDD revisions to detect stale decisions, classifying the impact on referenced ADRs, and updating traceability information with approval to produce a structured change impact report.

You can trace GDD changes to outdated ADRs by comparing Git history of the design document to review referenced architectural decisions, classifying each decision's validity based on the revised requirements, rules, formulas, or acceptance criteria.

Yes, the ADR impact assessment process guides per-ADR resolution decisions by classifying whether decisions are still valid, need review, or are likely superseded, and updates traceability information with approval to save a structured change impact report.

You need to analyze stale ADRs after updating tuning parameters when the GDD revision affects architectural traceability, requiring a comparison of Git history to classify the impact on referenced decisions and determine which ADRs require revision or replacement.

Yes, you can use this approach for game design documents involving changes to acceptance criteria and combat system formulas to identify affected architecture decisions and determine which ADRs require revision or replacement through impact analysis.