diff --git a/.out-of-scope/temporal-context.md b/.out-of-scope/temporal-context.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..8bd8f50c4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.out-of-scope/temporal-context.md
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# Temporal context as a first-class GSD signal
+
+**Source:** [#2756](https://github.com/gsd-build/get-shit-done/issues/2756)
+**Decision:** wontfix — closed without further engagement
+**Date:** 2026-05-02
+
+## Proposal summary
+
+Reporter proposed treating idle-time-between-turns as a first-class context signal in
+GSD. Three flavors floated across the issue:
+
+1. **Passive** — block at session resume injecting "you've been idle Nh, here's what was
+   open" into the orchestrator prompt.
+2. **Active** — `/resume-context` slash command.
+3. **Retrospective** — `HANDOFF.json` written at session end, read at next start.
+
+Framed initially as a `claude-inject-idle-time` plugin, with a request that GSD treat
+the pattern as core.
+
+## Why GSD does not own this
+
+- **Subagent gap unsolved.** Passive injection lands in the orchestrator's context
+  only. Subagents (the workers that actually do GSD's planning, execution, verification)
+  spawn fresh and never see the temporal signal. The proposal does not solve this, and
+  any GSD-core integration would inherit the gap. Until the subagent boundary is
+  addressed, "first-class temporal context" is at best a partial feature.
+- **`HANDOFF.json` duplicates existing artifacts.** GSD already persists session
+  continuity through `.planning/state/*` and per-phase artifacts (PLAN.md, RESEARCH.md,
+  REVIEW.md, VERIFICATION.md). A separate handoff file would either drift from those or
+  redundantly mirror them. The right primitive for "what was I doing" already exists.
+- **Statusline / TUI re-entry is platform-level, not GSD-level.** A statusline showing
+  idle time belongs in Claude Code itself or in a thin user plugin, not in GSD's phase
+  machinery.
+- **Scope is unstable.** Reporter agreed with the narrowed minimum ask ("doc mention
+  only, rest opt-in"), then partially retracted it in a follow-up comment ("very
+  integral to myself"). The maintainer asked which version of the ask should move
+  forward; reporter did not respond.
+
+## Re-open criteria
+
+This may be revisited if a reporter:
+
+- Engages with the subagent-gap problem and proposes a concrete mechanism for
+  temporal context to reach subagents (not just the orchestrator).
+- Demonstrates a use case `.planning/state/*` provably cannot serve.
+- Commits to a single stable scope (doc mention OR core integration OR plugin
+  reference) rather than oscillating between them mid-thread.
+
+A drive-by enhancement request that the author does not return to engage with after
+maintainer questions is not actionable. Future proposers: please plan to participate
+through to a triage decision rather than dropping an issue and moving on.
+
+## Related
+
+- `.planning/state/` — existing session-continuity artifacts
+- `get-shit-done/references/` — where any future plugin-interface doc would live