ADR-0025: Generic PPE text is displayed as generic, and the glossary rule is softened

Status: Accepted Date: 2026-09-02

Decisions

D-52 Where an SDS names no PPE material, the generic span is displayed verbatim and the absence of a material is stated

The glossary's per-item PPE rule becomes an aspiration the source data sometimes cannot meet, not a guarantee the product makes.

D-53 Safety content never enters the Corpus from outside the SDS in prototype scope

A curator may not supplement a generic PPE span from an external standard.

Context

R-42: Doc A's Section 8 says only "Wear appropriate protective gloves and clothing", naming no material. CONTEXT.md defined PPE as always per-item with a stated reason — "nitrile gloves", never "gloves" — a rule taken from the poster's idealised mockup (R-12). Real SDS sometimes do not contain that.

Rejected options

• Curator supplements from an authoritative external standard, stored with its own distinct provenance — genuinely more useful to a Handler, and rejected for prototype scope because it admits safety content from outside the SDS, which is what D-02 exists to prevent. If it is ever done it needs its own provenance channel and its own ADR, never a quiet curator habit.
• Show "Not Stated" and nothing else — rejected: "gloves and clothing" carries some signal, and discarding real supplier text is its own kind of omission.
• Flag the record incomplete pending supplier follow-up — a real improvement path, rejected as workflow the prototype will not staff.

This ruling may not be re-decided

If a change contradicts this ADR: stop and raise it. Do not implement over it.

Consequences

For some chemicals this product is less useful than the poster implies. That is a finding for the report, not a defect to engineer around.

Coverage

Upstream	Landed in	Evidence	Note
R-42	D-52, D-53	Doc A's material-free Section 8 is quoted in Context