diff --git a/doc/adr/0014-rest-api-not-using-jsonapi.md b/doc/adr/0014-rest-api-not-using-jsonapi.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..73c6115f5a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/adr/0014-rest-api-not-using-jsonapi.md
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+# 0014 Creation of a REST web service API -- Custom REST service based on HATEOS
+
+Date: Unknown
+
+## Status
+
+Accepted
+
+## Context
+
+LedgerSMB's original API, inherited from SQL-Ledger, was simply the form
+interfact used by the front-end. This has always been a nightmare to integrate
+with -- typos in field names, multiple posts needed to build up an invoice, and
+lots of challenges for a client developer to work against.
+
+There has long been demand for a more formal, stable API, and this is something
+the project has discussed for many years.
+
+"REST" has been the current style of APIs for quite some time, and several
+specific standards have emerged to help API developers reuse patterns that work
+in other applications. We considered two of these standards before deciding to
+"roll our own":
+
+- GraphQL
+- JSON:API
+
+The goal of both of these approaches is to minimize the number of round-trips a
+client app needs to make when exchanging data with the server, while providing
+self-documentation within the API itself. Both of these are current favorite API
+styles among developers at this writing (2023).
+
+However, both suffer from crucial drawbacks for an accounting system. Looking at
+an invoice as an example -- not only does it illustrate the problems, it also is
+the most desired object to expose via an API.
+
+First the key requirements:
+
+* An invoice has several different formats to represent: json, xml, PDF, HTML.
+* An invoice is composed of many different objects: customer account, line items
+  referencing parts, line items with calculated amounts, fields on the invoice
+itself, and a specific workflow state
+* Some of these related objects are independent of the invoice, while others
+  (line items) are wholly dependent on the invoice
+* The server needs to define and enforce the allowed workflow transitions, and
+  the client needs to know which transitions are available for a specific
+invoice in a specific state for a specific user
+
+While all of this is possible to do in either GraphQL or JSON:API, both require
+a lot of boilerplate to get set up for both client and server for the complexity
+of the relationships of the invoice object. These are general purpose tools
+being applied to a very specific payload shape -- it's far easier to define the
+shape of the payload to meet these requirements directly, than to build up all
+the relationships using one of these standards.
+
+So creating our own payload shape simplifies things for both clients and
+server-side development.
+
+We will base our API on principles as described in these resources:
+
+- [Bob Jones from RedHat in his July 1st, 2020 blog on REST
+  architecture](https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/rest-architecture)
+- [Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State
+  (HATEOAS)"](https://sookocheff.com/post/api/on-choosing-a-hypermedia-format/).
+
+We will use the defacto standard for documenting web service APIs,
+[Swagger/OpenAPI](https://swagger.io/specification/).
+
+
+
+## Decision
+
+The project will create a REST web services API with strong HATEOAS to make sure
+the server is in control of the process a resource goes through.  The aim being
+to keep clients thin and low on maintenance.  The API will be documented using
+OpenAPI 3.0.x.  The API will *not* make use of the JSON:API standard, instead
+opting to develop our own API practices.  These will include design of:
+
+ * A consistent URL schema, which uses [semantic
+   versioning](https://semver.org/) for version numbering
+ * OpenAPI documentation of individual endpoints as well as common practices
+ * A generic means to convey transitions (HATEOAS)
+
+## Consequences
+
+- A new namespace `/erp/api/` needs to be developed.
+- API versioning will happen encoding major version numbers, on the
+  `/erp/api/vXX` namespace (where XX is the version number).
+- As per semantic versioning, `/erp/api/v0` is the "unstable" API; API endpoints
+  will be promoted to `/erp/api/v1` (or higher) once the endpoint has been
+sufficiently stabilized.
+- Documentation can (and should) be distributed as rendered HTML from the
+  OpenAPI documentation.
+- Clients need to be 'thin': they will not include knowledge of the process and
+  transitions available to mutate a resource -- the server will present these.
+- The prior bullet allows for customization of resource specific processes using
+  server code and/or server configuration, without impact on the client.
+
+## Annotations