informs_downstream

A predicate declaring that the subject provides substrate, evidence, or influence to the object — the forward edge on the substrate side of a relationship whose dependent-side edge is grounded_in:: or informed_by::. The subject is what the object draws on; the edge makes the subject's downstream role visible from the subject's own node.

The edge lands in Relations on nodes that have downstream work — a Reference that informs multiple Decisions, a Decision that informs a Contract's Requirements, a Conviction that informs specialized Convictions. Authors choose whether to document the relationship from the substrate side (informs_downstream::) or the dependent side (grounded_in:: / informed_by::); both sides documenting is common and preserves the bidirectional visibility.

Carries

The predicate names a substrate-to-dependent direction. The subject is the providing side; the object is the drawing side. When a Decision writes informs_downstream::[[X Contract]], the Decision declares that the Contract's Requirement carries the thin enforcement clause pointing back at it — the reader standing at the Decision can trace forward to where the Decision is cashed out. When a Reference writes informs_downstream::[[Y Conviction]], the Reference declares its downstream role in the Conviction's argumentative substrate.

The web of associations the predicate activates is the forward side of provenance — from source to use, from commitment to enforcement, from substrate to specialization. The predicate is the graph's way of making a node's downstream presence visible without requiring a reader to crawl backwards from every potential dependent. Navigability improves when both directions carry edges; traversal is symmetric rather than one-sided.

Crescent

Against [[grounded_in -- normative or structural foundation]]

grounded_in:: is the dependent-side edge for structural dependence; informs_downstream:: is the substrate-side edge. They describe the same relationship from opposite ends — a Contract's Requirement grounded_in:: a Decision and the Decision informs_downstream:: the Contract are two edges on the same relation, each documented on the respective node. The distinction between the two predicates is direction and location, not substance: one is written on the dependent, the other on the substrate. Authors document both when navigability from either direction is useful; they document only one when the direction-asymmetry is acceptable.

Against [[informed_by -- weaker influence than grounded_in]]

informed_by:: is the dependent-side edge for weaker influence; informs_downstream:: is the substrate-side edge that can carry either the weaker or stronger kind of relationship. When the author writes informs_downstream::[[Y]] on a source node, the downstream node's own declaration (grounded_in:: or informed_by::) carries the weight distinction — informs_downstream:: does not specify whether the downstream draws on this node as substrate or as influence. This is a deliberate asymmetry: the dependent side owns the weight claim because the dependent is what would or would not continue to stand without the substrate.

Typing

Conviction-to-Decision case: normative substrate

A Conviction MAY use informs_downstream::[[X Decision]] when the Conviction is the normative substrate the Decision serves — when the stance commits the project to something the Decision is the structural realization of. The direction of authority runs Conviction → Decision: the Conviction generates the Decision, and the Decision would lose its grounding if the Conviction were weakened. Example: [[Human Authority Over Augmentation Systems]] carries informs_downstream::[[Adopt Wikilinks and Named Edges]] because the commitment to human authority over augmentation is what generates the requirement that edges be author-declared rather than tool-inferred.

This case contrasts with the corollary-side relation, where a Conviction is a structural corollary enabled by a Decision — that direction uses grounded_in:: from the Conviction (see grounded_in Typing). Both predicates may legitimately connect a Conviction and a Decision; the choice between them encodes whether the Conviction generates the Decision (normative substrate) or the Decision enables the Conviction (structural corollary). Back-edges from the Decision (informs_downstream:: or informed_by:: pointing back at the Conviction) are optional and discovered by search, matching minimal-back-edges practice rather than being part of the convention.

Instances

Relations