Everything built so far targets OKF v0.1. Upstream published v0.2 on
2026-07-25, so the plan records how the library relates to it and, more
importantly, who owns each decision.
Read from the spec itself rather than secondhand, which corrected two
readings that a summary had gotten wrong:
- STRICT_V1's `timestamp` is NOT a defect. Section 13.1 grants consumers a
documented fallback to legacy `timestamp` precisely when `generated` is
absent, and STRICT_V1 emits no `generated`. Nothing is asked of the wiki.
- The one measured shape problem is DEFAULT's `generated: "true"`, because
v0.2 requires `generated.by` within `generated`. That key was not reserved
in v0.1, so it was legal when written; v0.2 claimed the name. DEFAULT
states commons' ingest-spec section 5 layer, so the fix is commons' call
and is raised there as open question V1 rather than patched locally.
Two findings shrink the work. The canonical form for `generated` and a
single `verified` is an inline flow mapping, which the existing scalar
parser already round-trips as an opaque string, so block-list support is
only needed for `sources` and multi-verifier `verified` -- and only if a
named consumer asks. And the collision degrades safely: `_is_ingest_owned`
returns False for a v0.2 mapping, so a foreign concept is refused rather
than overwritten.
The track sits between Phases 3 and 4 because Phase 4 freezes the
cross-runtime contract. Freezing a v0.1 shape into two runtimes would let
the shared fixture suite certify the drift instead of catching it.
Self-imposed rule, since the spec does not require it: conform first, claim
after. Declaring `okf_version: "0.2"` is a MAY with no conformance
checkpoint, so claiming it early would be permitted -- and would be the same
class of true-sounding misleading claim as reporting a 0.2.0 measurement
under a 0.3.1 heading.
Also moves the guard 0.3.1 measurement procedure out of session state and
into execution-order.md, where it belongs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01A2aKJxLejT9S8jYwoZ9fut
The proving consumer answered Q1-Q4 on 2026-07-25, each measured or read out
of their code that day. No row in the mapping moved. Three of the four answers
carry a sharper reason than this table drafted, and one reverses a correction
this table made a day earlier.
Q2 is the substantive change. This table had corrected the plan's eight-key
required set down to four, against the consumer's REQUIRED_KEYS constant.
Their operator ratified eight: the constant is their emit-path minimum, not
their contract, and all eight keys are present on 522/522 of their documents.
STRICT_V1 is therefore deliberately stricter than the consumer's own
validator; if they ever ship a class lacking source_sha they bump the profile
rather than bend the bundle, and they say so before shipping it. The eleven-key
allowlist is unchanged and still a different thing from the required set:
version/date are layer-specific and summary is the one nullable key, so all
three stay optional-when-absent.
Q1, Q3 and Q4 keep their Consumer/Guard assignments, now with the reasons that
justify them: gate 5 escalates on run state (disposition == verbatim) rather
than document class, so a profile structurally cannot see it; gate 4's
changelog rule is a vendor slug list that is not scoped to concepts/ at all;
gates 19 and 22 need external state, one of them by construction never
blocking. Assumption C2 is confirmed at 25 gates and the index shape is
confirmed non-negotiable.
Both reviews - the consumer's and the operator's - are now in, so the port may
begin. The Guard column is unaffected by all of it.
Phase 3 starts with a written mapping of the proving consumer's gates to
exactly one of Profile / Guard / Consumer, reviewed before any porting.
Drafted here against claude-code-llm-wiki's validate.py and bundle.py at
their 9ee5a8e, which is their single gate entrypoint, so the enumeration
is exhaustive against that commit and no other.
Reading the validator corrected two things this plan asserted before it
had been read, both of which would have produced a wrong STRICT_V1:
- Required frontmatter keys are FOUR (type, title, description,
timestamp), not the eight the plan listed. Those eight were a
truncation of FRONTMATTER_KEY_ORDER, which is an eleven-key allowlist
doubling as canonical emission order. frontmatter_schema therefore
needs three fields -- required, allowlisted, ordered -- not one
required/optional pair.
- Reserved files are THREE basenames, not two: README.md is reserved
like index.md and log.md but in a third way, present and exempt from
the document gates while still content-scanned. A two-valued
required/required-absent policy cannot express it.
Two of the 25 gates bundle checks from different columns
(LLM_OUTPUT_LINT, BUNDLE_URL_ALLOWLIST). They are decomposed per check
rather than assigned wholesale to a dominant column, which would have
moved the residue to the wrong side of the boundary.
Also recorded: index policy is the widest gap between the two profiles
(per-bundle vs per-directory, two link formats, append-if-absent vs
exact match, root index with or without frontmatter), and C4 is
confirmed with the operator -- profiles in code, no config-file loading
in v1.
Four open questions are addressed to the proving consumer in the
artifact; no porting until they and the table come back reviewed.
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
