Skip to content

Fix grammar: wrong word "tenants" → "tenets" - #71

Open
lunar-me wants to merge 2 commits into
KimGLee:mainfrom
lunar-me:fix-docs/grammar-minor-001
Open

Fix grammar: wrong word "tenants" → "tenets"#71
lunar-me wants to merge 2 commits into
KimGLee:mainfrom
lunar-me:fix-docs/grammar-minor-001

Conversation

@lunar-me

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

This PR fixes a grammar issue in kernel/K00 Standards Control/16 Leaf Module Size Register.md (line 26).

Problem

The word "tenants" (occupants/lessees) is used where "tenets" (principles/doctrines) is meant. The sentence describes four separable principles of the Audit Evidence Reuse module.

The problematic text:

Its four separable tenants are already extracted to

Fix

Replaced with:

Its four separable tenets are already extracted to

Type of Change

  • Documentation fix (grammar, spelling, logical error)
  • Code change
  • Breaking change

Checklist

  • Documentation files only
  • No code changes
  • Fix verified against original text

KimGLee commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Thank you for spotting this wording problem. You are right that the existing phrasing is confusing and worth correcting.

Review outcome: Request Changes — the current one-word replacement should not be merged as written.

tenet means a principle or doctrine, while this sentence is describing four extracted functional modules. The same sentence also still uses new audit tenant and whole tenant, so changing only the first occurrence to tenets makes the terminology internally inconsistent.

Please update all three occurrences consistently to function / functions. A clearer rendering would also use have already been extracted into rather than are already extracted to.

Because PR #72 already requires a write-back to this Size Register, the cleanest option is to fold this wording correction into #72 instead of maintaining two overlapping governance changes.

For future contributions, please open an Issue first so that the problem, authority layer, and expected scope can be agreed before implementation. Then open a linked PR using a reference such as Closes #<issue-number>. This makes the discussion and repository write-back much easier to track.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants