diff --git a/docs/adr/ADR-0027-entropy-review-is-not-this-product.md b/docs/adr/ADR-0027-entropy-review-is-not-this-product.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..28473c58
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/adr/ADR-0027-entropy-review-is-not-this-product.md
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+# ADR-0027 — Entropy review is a different product, and this one does not become it
+
+Status: accepted · Closes [#342](https://github.com/MongLong0214/commitlore/issues/342)
+
+## Context
+
+A review of v0.5.0 scored CommitLore's direct effect on AI code entropy at 7.1
+and asked, reasonably, whether the tool should detect the things an agent
+actually does to a codebase: comments that restate the code, an abstraction used
+once, a function's responsibility quietly widened, a compatibility branch added
+to protect a caller that should have moved.
+
+That list is accurate. Those are real failures, they are common in
+agent-written code, and this repository does nothing about them.
+
+The question is not whether they matter. It is whether they belong here, and
+the honest answer has been neither promised nor refused — which is the state
+that lets a claim drift in later, when somebody writes a launch post.
+
+## The distinction that decides it
+
+Those checks read a **diff**. Everything in this product reads a **record store**.
+
+| | reads | decides |
+|---|---|---|
+| entropy review | the change in front of it | is this code well-shaped |
+| CommitLore | the decisions this repository has recorded | does this decision still apply |
+
+They share a motivation and no mechanism. A tool that judges whether an
+abstraction is premature needs taste about code. A tool that says "this was
+ruled out in March and the reason still holds" needs provenance, lifecycle and
+a trust boundary. Building the first inside the second would give the combined
+thing two data models, two failure modes, and one name.
+
+This is the same argument [ADR-0013](ADR-0013-what-commitlore-is-not.md) made
+about a dashboard, an embedding layer and an organisation graph: adjacent
+problem, different product, and a market position entered late with less. A
+linter and a review bot already occupy this ground.
+
+## What the measurements say
+
+ADR-0013 records that M1 (p = 0.7480), M1-b (p = 0.0522) and M2 (p = 0.2247)
+found no significant effect from injecting more context into an agent. The value
+this product has is not volume of context; it is **control** — which records may
+be obeyed, which are stale, which revive something already rejected.
+
+Entropy review is a bet on the other hypothesis. Making that bet inside a
+product whose own data declines to support it would be building on a foundation
+this repository has already measured and found absent.
+
+## Decision
+
+**Entropy review is out of scope for CommitLore.** Not deferred — out of scope.
+No skill, no command, and no roadmap entry implies it.
+
+The positioning stays where the README already has it, and it is worth stating
+in the negative because the two are easy to conflate:
+
+> CommitLore does not slow the rate at which an agent produces entropy. It stops
+> that entropy being inherited by the next agent as settled design.
+
+Those are different sentences. The first is a claim this repository cannot
+support. The second is what the lifecycle, the path scope and the trust grading
+actually do.
+
+## Consequences
+
+**A separate tool may be built.** Nothing here forbids `commitlore-entropy-review`
+existing as its own repository with its own name, and a diff-reading skill would
+compose with this one at the agent rather than in the codebase. That is a
+different decision than the one recorded here.
+
+**The scoring stands unchallenged.** A future review that scores direct entropy
+suppression low is describing the product accurately, not finding a gap. The
+answer is this ADR, not a feature.
+
+**A claim to the contrary is a defect.** "Reduces AI code entropy", "improves
+code quality" or "prevents over-engineering" in any README, skill description,
+release note or launch post contradicts this decision. `docs/COMPATIBILITY.md`
+and the README both currently decline to say it; that is the state to hold.
+
+## Alternatives ruled out
+
+**Ship it as an optional skill inside this repository.** Optional does not solve
+it. The skill would carry the product's name, be installed by its plugin, and
+inherit its claims — and its failures would be read as this tool's failures. The
+separation that matters is the name, not the load order.
+
+**Defer it to a later milestone.** A deferral is a promise with no date. This
+question has been open in reviews twice; leaving it open a third time invites the
+same conversation rather than settling it.
+
+**Do nothing and let the README stay silent.** Silence is what produced the
+question. An unclaimed capability is indistinguishable from an unbuilt one, and
+somebody eventually resolves the ambiguity in the direction that sells better.