Yes, but I think what many have been expressing in trend in hard to track decision making documentation (documentation in general) regarding the Swift project.
This has come up in a few proposals that referenced material and important context are missing from proposals that exist, because it's not mentioned or linked to in a centralized official location that is easy to reference: The Swift Evolution Proposal itself.
If these things are considered "background context" to the proposal's frame of reference, it needs to be explicitly mentioned and linked to in order for readers to be in the same evaluation bounds that the author's are in.
EDIT: The mentioned "Concurrency Manifesto" by Chris is linked in the proposal, but the statement stands for any other possible discussions that were written that are considered prior research for the proposal.
In general I agree with this proposal, but I'm also 100% in agreement with @davedelong and others who have expressed concerns over the proposal's effective use of our ability to decide if it's the best choice without at least a basic pros/cons list of other approaches to concurrency that were considered.
@davedelong as a side-note, it was explicitly mentioned through the Result proposal review that the intention is that the type might end up deprecated and was a stop-gap for when we had a first-class concurrency model so that you just annotate async throws on a method and never deal with Result again.
... but I wrote that last statement before finding and re-reading the link, and the quote I remembered and the quote written are different and makes me wonder if Result might have some role to play in the Structured Concurrency conversation (or even concurrency model)