Standardize Chinese contract terminology on 约定
将中文 contract 术语统一为「约定」
The Chinese documentation rendered English `contract` inconsistently as `契约` and `约定`, sometimes within one file or paragraph. The terminology table prescribed `契约`, while reviewed incremental proofreading selected the more natural engineering rendering `约定`. Leaving the table and corpus split made either choice fail the repository's terminology rule and allowed later translations to reintroduce the disagreement. Eng
English
Problem
The Chinese documentation rendered English contract inconsistently as 契约 and 约定, sometimes within one file or paragraph. The terminology table prescribed 契约, while reviewed incremental proofreading selected the more natural engineering rendering 约定. Leaving the table and corpus split made either choice fail the repository's terminology rule and allowed later translations to reintroduce the disagreement.
English convention also commonly renders as 约定. That overlap is intentional: ordinary Chinese engineering prose uses 约定 for both concepts, and context normally carries whether a statement is descriptive practice or a binding interface rule. Where an English sentence explicitly contrasts a convention with a contract, the Chinese sentence must preserve the distinction through wording such as 惯例 versus 约定, rather than mechanically giving every convention the same rendering.
Decision
The terminology source of truth defines contract as 约定 and adapter contract as 适配器约定（adapter contract） on first mention. Every active Chinese documentation pair follows that ruling; archived Agent Notes remain frozen. Unpaired bilingual calibration assets and the translation prompt's explanatory prose follow the same terms so they cannot teach the superseded rendering.
The migration is semantic prose maintenance, not a rename of identifiers. Inline code, file paths, links, API names, English filenames containing contract, and machine-readable values remain unchanged. convention does not receive a global terminology row or corpus-wide rewrite: translators preserve natural Chinese and explicitly disambiguate only where the source contrasts the two concepts. The concrete prose decision separately decides when English prose should replace a vague contract use with the exact rule, API, or behavior before translation.
Alternatives considered
Keep contract as 契约. Rejected because the reviewed corpus consistently preferred 约定 for technical interfaces, lifecycle guarantees, and behavioral boundaries, and maintaining the older term would require reverting accepted proofreading across many documents.
Give convention a mandatory global rendering. Rejected because its meaning ranges from naming practice to protocol convention. A single forced term would create a second broad migration without improving ordinary prose; only explicit source contrasts require a distinct rendering.
Permit both 契约 and 约定 for contract. Rejected because it preserves the exact inconsistency that made package families and even individual paragraphs disagree.
Consequences
Active Chinese documentation has one binding rendering for contract, and future translation prompts receive that decision directly from the terminology table. Archived records keep their historical text. A source sentence that contrasts convention and contract requires local semantic wording, so equal Chinese dictionary choices never erase a distinction the source actually uses.
Verification
The migration scans every active bilingual pair, updates each affected Chinese document, re-records its pairing sidecar, and leaves active prose with no 契约 occurrences. The pairing gate, full doc-sync, website build, translation prompt tests and snapshot, and git diff --check verify the resulting corpus and pipeline assets.
中文
问题
中文文档对英文 contract 的译法在「契约」与「约定」之间不一致，有时甚至出现在同一文件或段落中。术语表规定使用「契约」，而经过评审的增量复校选择了更符合工程语境的「约定」。若术语表与语料继续分裂，无论选择哪一种译法都会违反仓库术语规则，后续翻译也会再次引入分歧。
英文 convention 也常译为「约定」。这种重合是有意保留的：普通中文工程文体会用「约定」表达这两个概念，通常可由上下文判断它描述的是惯常做法还是有约束力的接口规则。如果英文句子明确对比 convention 与 contract，中文必须通过「惯例」与「约定」等措辞保留这种区分，而不能机械地把每个 convention 都译成同一个词。
决策
术语真源规定 contract 译为「约定」，adapter contract 首次出现时写作「适配器约定（adapter contract）」。所有活跃中文文档配对均遵循该裁决；归档 Agent Note 保持冻结。未参与配对的双语校准资产和翻译提示词说明文字也采用相同术语，避免继续教授已被取代的译法。
这次迁移只维护语义正文，不重命名标识符。行内代码、文件路径、链接、API 名称、文件名中包含的英文 contract 以及机器可读值均保持不变。convention 不新增全局术语行，也不做全语料改写：翻译时保留自然中文，只在源文明确对比两个概念时消歧。具体行文决策另行规定：如果英文正文中的 contract 含糊不清，应在翻译前将其改为确切的规则、API 或行为。
考虑过的替代方案
继续把 contract 译为「契约」。 否决，因为经过评审的语料在技术接口、生命周期保证和行为边界中一致倾向使用「约定」；保留旧术语意味着回退大量已接受的复校结果。
为 convention 规定强制的全局译法。 否决，因为它既可表示命名惯例，也可表示协议约定。强制一种译法会带来另一轮大规模迁移，却无法改善普通行文；只有源文明示对比时才需要使用不同措辞。
允许 contract 同时使用「契约」与「约定」。 否决，因为这会保留导致包家族乃至同一段落互相矛盾的原始问题。
后果
活跃中文文档对 contract 只有一种有约束力的译法，后续翻译提示词会直接从术语表获得该决定。归档记录保留历史文字。源文若对比 convention 与 contract，仍需在局部使用语义化措辞，因此相同的常用中文译法不会抹去源文真正表达的区别。
验证
迁移扫描每一组活跃双语配对，更新受影响的中文文档并重新记录对应的伴随记录，使活跃正文不再出现「契约」。配对门禁、完整 doc-sync、网站构建、翻译提示词测试与快照，以及 git diff --check 共同验证最终语料和流水线资产。