They named both on a live channel today, having withdrawn the half of their
original question that turned out not to bind them. Recorded here rather than in
a reply so the scope freeze has to answer them explicitly.
`write_index` ownership was genuinely ambiguous in this plan — they read
deliverable 4's "write" and asked which line owns it. It is deliverable 3, and
the plan now says so.
Their vocabulary requirement is already the Python half's shape:
`TypePolicy(allowed=None)` is the default and rewrites nothing, so there is no
DEFAULT_TYPE to snap to. The reference checker's collapse is a known deviation to
resolve with the convention owner under step 1, not a behaviour to lift.
Both were wrong, and the convention owner corrected them: this library is not
a marketplace plugin, so there is no catalog ref to re-pin -- the integration
is a registry entry in the catalog's parity gate. And the catalog's vendored
okf-check.mjs is not byte-identical to okr's (~141 differing lines of code, an
intentional layer-1 floor), so it cannot serve as a conformance oracle. Parity
is behavioural over the spec section 3 floor in default read-mode, per file,
measured by that gate over an adversarial corpus.
Phase 1 (Door A): ingest-spec v1 implementation + §11 golden fixtures,
pinned to the current spec revision, with TDD order and byte-exact
verification criteria. Phase 2 (Doors B/C): guard-gated inbox and
external bundle import. Phase 3: configurable bundle contract via a
profile object, default profile locked to the golden suite. Phase 4:
zero-dep Node half, coordination-first with owner sign-offs.
Each plan carries explicit key assumptions with tests and a
verification section.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QeqhJpYQyghASjiJo5EhGg
