# Rejected Designs

Historical preservation of full TRD drafts for design options that were considered and rejected during the 2026-05-18 schema spike.

For the side-by-side comparison and rationale for rejection, see [../SPIKE_SCHEMA_DESIGN.md](../SPIKE_SCHEMA_DESIGN.md).
For the chosen approach (Option B refined), see [../TRD.md](../TRD.md).

## Files

| File | Option | Why rejected |
|------|--------|--------------|
| [TRD_A.md](TRD_A.md) | **Option A** — first-class `reference_servicing_center` entity with globally-unique `servicing_center_name` | Introduces a new domain concept ("servicing center") with an active naming debate ("servicing entity" vs "servicing center" vs "profit center name"). The globally-unique `servicing_center_name` constraint blocks the legitimate "The Orchard" case where the same label spans multiple SAP profit centers. See SPIKE_SCHEMA_DESIGN.md §7. |
| [TRD_C.md](TRD_C.md) | **Option C** — pure junction table + `display_name` on `reference_sap_profit_center` (Abacus team's chosen approach) | Originally rejected in the spike because it tied display names to individual SAP PCs with no flexibility for per-signing-entity labels. The chosen Option B-refined design (see TRD.md, DECISION_LOG D24/D25) ended up converging on Option C's mechanic — `display_name` on `reference_sap_profit_center` — because the simpler "one canonical name per PC" model fit the business requirements after stakeholder review. TRD_C is preserved here as the original framing; the active design is TRD.md. |

## Status

These documents are **not maintained**. They reflect the design landscape as of 2026-05-18. Do not implement from these — use TRD.md.