@tsadler1988 you might like this :)

@michael-basil as you were reading our patterns recently anyways, would you mind taking a look at this change here? It is a fairly small change, so I am just looking for a 2nd pair of eyes to see if the text is easy to understand and if this is an improvement to the pattern.

If you don't have time, no worries!

Taking a look now.

@spier - After reading through the additional language and the attached links I believe it is an improvement to the pattern.

Great to hear! Thank you for the review!

The links to the company-internal RFC process are opinionated helping to form a more concrete idea of how this could play out. There are some baked in biases and assumptions, but this is okay and serves the purpose well.

If it were me on the other side, with the level of understanding I currently have, I would approve this once the automated check failure is cleared.

Thanks for reminding me of the issues with the vale check. I had mistakenly assumed that this was a false positive, however now I see that there is a systematic issues with our check, as it does not find out custom word lists at all. I am debugging this now.

This does not have to stop this PR from going live though. Will make fixes in a separate PR, once I figure out what's up there :)

Thanks again @michael-basil !