diff --git a/docs/architecture/adr-030-consensus-refactor.md b/docs/architecture/adr-030-consensus-refactor.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..d48cfe10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/architecture/adr-030-consensus-refactor.md
@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+# ADR 030: Consensus Refactor
+
+## Context
+
+One of the biggest challenges this project faces is to proof that the
+implementations of the specifications are correct, much like we strive to
+formaly verify our alogrithms and protocols we should work towards high
+confidence about the correctness of our program code. One of those is the core
+of Tendermint - Consensus - which currently resides in the `consensus` package.
+Over time there has been high friction making changes to the package due to the
+algorithm being scattered in a side-effectful container (the current
+`ConsensusState`). In order to test the algorithm a large object-graph needs to
+be set up and even than the non-deterministic parts of the container makes will
+prevent high certainty. Where ideally we have a 1-to-1 representation of the
+[spec](https://github.com/tendermint/spec), ready and easy to test for domain
+experts.
+
+Addresses:
+
+- [#1495](https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/issues/1495)
+- [#1692](https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/issues/1692)
+
+## Decision
+
+To remedy these issues we plan a gradual, non-invasive refactoring of the
+`consensus` package. Starting of by isolating the consensus alogrithm into
+a pure function and a finite state machine to address the most pressuring issue
+of lack of confidence. Doing so while leaving the rest of the package in tact
+and have follow-up optional changes to improve the sepration of concerns.
+
+### Implementation changes
+
+The core of Consensus can be modelled as a function with clear defined inputs:
+
+* `State` - data container for current round, height, etc.
+* `Event`- significant events in the network
+
+producing clear outputs;
+
+* `State` - updated input
+* `Message` - signal what actions to perform
+
+```go
+type Event int
+
+const (
+	EventUnknown Event = iota
+	EventProposal
+	Majority23PrevotesBlock
+	Majority23PrecommitBlock
+	Majority23PrevotesAny
+	Majority23PrecommitAny
+	TimeoutNewRound
+	TimeoutPropose
+	TimeoutPrevotes
+	TimeoutPrecommit
+)
+
+type Message int
+
+const (
+	MeesageUnknown Message = iota
+	MessageProposal
+	MessageVotes
+	MessageDecision
+)
+
+type State struct {
+	height      uint64
+	round       uint64
+	step        uint64
+	lockedValue interface{} // TODO: Define proper type.
+	lockedRound interface{} // TODO: Define proper type.
+	validValue  interface{} // TODO: Define proper type.
+	validRound  interface{} // TODO: Define proper type.
+	// From the original notes: valid(v)
+	valid       interface{} // TODO: Define proper type.
+	// From the original notes: proposer(h, r)
+	proposer    interface{} // TODO: Define proper type.
+}
+
+func Consensus(Event, State) (State, Message) {
+	// Consolidate implementation.
+}
+```
+
+Tracking of relevant information to feed `Event` into the function and act on
+the output is left to the `ConsensusExecutor` (formerly `ConsensusState`). 
+
+Benefits for testing surfacing nicely as testing for a sequence of events
+against algorithm could be as simple as the following example:
+
+``` go
+func TestConsensusXXX(t *testing.T) {
+	type expected struct {
+		message Message
+		state   State
+	}
+
+	// Setup order of events, initial state and expectation.
+	var (
+		events = []struct {
+			event Event
+			want  expected
+		}{
+		// ...
+		}
+		state = State{
+		// ...
+		}
+	)
+
+	for _, e := range events {
+		sate, msg = Consensus(e.event, state)
+
+		// Test message expectation.
+		if msg != e.want.message {
+			t.Fatalf("have %v, want %v", msg, e.want.message)
+		}
+
+		// Test state expectation.
+		if !reflect.DeepEqual(state, e.want.state) {
+			t.Fatalf("have %v, want %v", state, e.want.state)
+		}
+	}
+}
+```
+
+### Implementation roadmap
+
+* implement proposed implementation
+* replace currently scattered calls in `ConsensusState` with calls to the new
+  `Consensus` function
+* rename `ConsensusState` to `ConsensusExecutor` to avoid confusion
+* propose design for improved separation and clear information flow between
+  `ConsensusExecutor` and `ConsensusReactor`
+
+## Status
+
+Draft.
+
+## Consequences
+
+### Positive
+
+- isolated implementation of the algorithm
+- improved testability - simpler to proof correctness
+- clearer separation of concerns - easier to reason
+
+### Negative
+
+### Neutral