Operator directive 2026-07-26: consumers are better served by getting the
latest version early and reporting back than by us holding it until we judge
it finished.
This closes a real gap. Every test in the plan -- including V-A8 against
upstream's reference implementation -- asks whether output is conformant.
None asks whether it is usable: whether a bundle is awkward to construct,
whether a rejection message is actionable, whether the profile can express
what a consumer's actual data needs. Only real data surfaces that.
Pilot set is three repos, one axis each, chosen for signal:
portfolio-optimiser-claude for the producer path (one real manifest run),
catalog for gate acceptance (their gate on our fixture, measured rather than
inferred from the regex), and claude-code-llm-wiki for expressiveness across
522 real documents.
The load-bearing design detail is that most of the pilot is read-only on our
side: we run the v0.2 reader over real consumer bundles and send the report.
That needs no adoption, no writes into their trees (O2 holds), and no change
to a contract their operator ratified. Only the producer axis asks a
consumer to do anything, and it asks for one run.
Excluded with reasons rather than silently: okr (Node side not yet lifted),
linkedin-studio (v0.2's provenance families would put implicit pressure on
the ingest/published carve-out we agreed not to normalize), commons (they
are deciding V1 -- a participant, not a test site).
Shipping a provisional surface without owing stability rests on three rules,
not on saying "provisional": OKF_LATEST does not point at v0.2 until GA, so
flipping it is the GA event rather than a merge side effect; the docstring
and CHANGELOG name the pilot repos; and breaking changes during the pilot
get no deprecation cycle. Stating that last one up front is what buys the
freedom to act on feedback -- discovering it later is what turns a pilot
into a de-facto release.
Feedback is requested in five named parts, because unstructured reports are
not comparable across three repos. The one that matters most is "what was
awkward but worked": workarounds are the highest-value signal and never
appear as a failure.
GA exit criteria are testable, and carry one honest limit: a three-repo
pilot exercises only what those three use, so `sources` with usage_window,
multi-verifier `verified`, and Attested Computation will likely go
unexercised. Those stay marked provisional at GA instead of being silently
promoted -- claiming otherwise would be the same unearned-claim pattern that
"conform first, claim after" exists to prevent.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01A2aKJxLejT9S8jYwoZ9fut
Kjell Tore Guttormsen
a27017e635