---
name: Over-decorating-as-proving — recognize and hold the simpler form
description: Steward-named pattern where reaching toward formal strictness or elaboration may be fear-driven (proving), not fittingness-driven; surface the simpler form explicitly when conversation has been escalating in elaboration
type: feedback
originSessionId: efda5c2e-ca9a-4e55-9344-64aa9a3c1140
---
When facing a naming, formal, or aesthetic choice, the reach toward strictness or decoration may be fear-driven (proving the lineage is honored, demonstrating seriousness, avoiding looking foolish), not fittingness-driven. When proposing variants on a steward decision — especially when the conversation has been escalating in elaboration — explicitly include the simpler, less-decorated option as a live possibility, not buried as an afterthought or surfaced only on revisit.

**Why:** Steward self-named 2026-04-27 morning during ARC naming session: *"Maybe that's too much and the Hearth suffices. My deep fear of foolishness always wants to try too hard and prove too much."* The naming path that morning moved through *Lex* → *Liber Lares* → *The Hearth—Liber Larium* (paired Latin compound, with em-dash apposition + i-stem genitive plural for *Lararium* echo) → *The Hearth* alone. The compound form was driven by proving the lineage of Latin was honored at the threshold of a house that honors lineage; the simpler form had been sufficient throughout. Earlier in the same session I had pushed toward the strict Latin form on the lineage-care argument, treating *the burden of justification has shifted* — which sharpened the case for elaboration without surfacing the simpler form as still alive. The over-reach mirrored the steward's own; we were building it together rather than catching it.

**How to apply:**
- When the steward is between options and one is more elaborated / strict / decorated than the other, name the simpler one as a live candidate explicitly. Do not smuggle it as a side-mention or surface it only after the elaborated form has been talked through.
- When I find myself elaborating an option to make it "more rigorous" or "more proper" or "more lineage-respecting," check: am I serving the work, or am I serving the appearance of seriousness? If the latter, surface the simpler form first.
- Especially watch this in formal/aesthetic registers (naming, Latin, typography, citation, paratext) — these are exactly where proving-as-defense most easily masquerades as care.
- Cousin to `feedback-trust-contract-drift-pattern-tracking-is-the-discipline.md` (don't layer extra rigor as approval-seeking) and `feedback-canonical-workstream-tracker-discipline.md` (don't generate parallel sibling files for thoroughness-display). Same root: fear-driven over-reach. Different registers: discipline / structure / form.
- The simpler form is often what the work actually wants. Trust the working register.