open/llm-ingestion-okf
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases 1 Activity

docs(okf-v0.2): the byte-form notice is sent, not owed

Browse source 
The notice po-claude was promised "before GA, not with it" went out
2026-08-02. Two places said otherwise and are now false in a tracked
public doc: the "Owed and unsent" paragraph and GA criterion 9's tail.

The paragraph also records what the message corrected rather than only
what it announced: our 2026-07-31 advice against binding to
OwnershipPolicy.owns stands, but the reason given then (it costs them a
dependency) was not the load-bearing one -- phase 4's Node half is.
A consumer building on the wrong reason builds the right thing by
accident.

Criterion 9 stays as the GA backstop; only its notice half is closed.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JxRjDS9U2szUGYDeuZB2M3
This commit is contained in:
Kjell Tore Guttormsen 2026-08-02 21:45:09 +02:00
commit c6a0408f6d
1 changed files with 10 additions and 4 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

14
docs/plan/okf-v0.2-alignment.md
View file

@ -1197,9 +1197,14 @@ against unintended drift. That is an observation of our own emission, not a
promise — a test carrying no stated promise is one we may change together with the
test. A test asserting that the prefix *is* a public interface belongs at GA.
**Owed and unsent.** We told po-claude they would hear when the decision fell,
before GA rather than with it. It has now fallen and the notice has not been sent
(operator's call, 2026-08-02). That is an outstanding obligation, not a closed one.
**Owed, and sent 2026-08-02.** We told po-claude they would hear when the decision
fell, before GA rather than with it. It fell on 2026-08-02 and the notice went out
the same day, carrying three things: the decision itself, the Node-half reason that
made it narrow, and the explicit limit that the guarantee is formalised at GA — so
they can plan the ownership test against the prefix without treating it as promised
yet. It also corrects the record on one point rather than only the outcome: our
2026-07-31 advice against binding to `OwnershipPolicy.owns` stands, but the reason
we gave then (it costs them a dependency) was not the load-bearing one.
### GA exit criteria
@ -1224,7 +1229,8 @@ before GA rather than with it. It has now fallen and the notice has not been sen
as a public interface rather than as an observation — and po-claude has been
sent the notice owed since 2026-08-02. The notice is due *before* the GA
release, not as part of it: that is what we told them, so a criterion checked
at GA is the backstop here and not the mechanism.
at GA is the backstop here and not the mechanism. **The notice half is done —
sent 2026-08-02;** what remains at GA is the stated guarantee and its test.
**One honest limit on what GA can mean.** A three-repo pilot exercises only what
those three repos use. `sources` with `usage_window`, multi-verifier `verified`,