A rejected idea should not return unchanged without an explanation
A rejection is valuable knowledge about scope, but it is not necessarily a permanent judgment about the idea. The record should preserve whether the feature was rejected entirely, deferred to another release, or declined under a particular budget condition. That distinction determines when reconsideration is appropriate. Regeneration from unchanged sources should not erase the decision merely because the model finds the original request again. Conversely, a later approved expansion should be able to reopen the candidate with a clear explanation. A useful test repeats the same generation first with unchanged evidence and then with a new source that explicitly changes the release boundary. The first should retain the rejection; the second should create a reviewable reconsideration. In both cases, the prior rationale helps the owner assess what changed instead of forcing the team to reconstruct an earlier conversation.
Working through the example
A customer declines an offline feature because it conflicts with the intended release scope. Regenerating the project from the same notes proposes it again as mandatory. Retain the rejected candidate and its rationale. Show renewed evidence or a changed scope as the reason for reconsideration instead of erasing the decision.
A discriminating check
Regenerate from unchanged sources and check whether the prior rejection remains visible. Rejection can be conditional; the system must not treat a temporary release decision as a permanent ban. The traceability sources motivate preserving decisions and their supporting relationships. Binding approval to a particular revision is an explicit project design rule, rather than a research performance claim.