Capability Library consistency review

Review date: September 17, 2026 Review state: independent review approved, including post-review projection consistency

This review checks the CRD library as one system rather than validating only the latest tranche. It does not establish implementation, deployment, compatibility-level adoption, or website publication.

Structural checks

Check	Result	Notes
CRD file and inventory parity	pass	117 CRD files and 117 inventory rows after duplicate consolidation and two review-required additions
Inventory and architecture-alignment name parity	pass	every inventory capability has one alignment row, including source-composed package composition and request-time access evaluation
Required CRD sections and interaction fields	pass	every CRD contains Identity, Core meaning, Interaction Contract MLEs, Rules/defaults, Unknowns, provenance, and the required interaction fields
Ledger identifier uniqueness	pass	statement, boundary-decision, unresolved-question, and restricted-evidence identifiers are unique
Local Markdown links	pass	all relative links resolve, and framework anchors resolve against the committed baseline rather than unpublished working-tree content
Historical corpus disposition	pass	all 90 Markdown files at the selected historical revision appear exactly once in the disposition ledger
Restricted document disposition	pass	all 26 admitted restricted documents retain a bounded public-safe disposition; detailed evidence remains outside the public repository
Publication-safety token scan	pass	no restricted repository name, revision, local absolute path, or restricted evidence filename appears in public capability files
Repository tests	pass	all 10 available documentation tests pass
Restricted realization catch-up	pass	every admitted tranche has a bounded implementation disposition; unknown, absent, planned, static, tested, deployed, and production states remain distinct

Duplicate and overlap review

The review compares capability purpose, meaningful outcome, actor, transition, and result rather than names alone.

Related candidates	Disposition
Onboarding contact-channel verification / contact-point control verification	consolidated into `verify-contact-point-control`; onboarding is a profile because journey binding does not change the verification outcome
Controlled sharing / public publication / access-policy maintenance / request-time access evaluation / discoverability / usage rights	remain separate; each transition or policy axis can change independently and has an explicit boundary decision
Workflow package / installed workflow / workflow run / routine / routine run	remain separate definitions, installations, and executions with independent state and outcomes
Goal / objective / target / measurement definition / metric observation	remain separate direction, success-condition, measurement-semantics, and evidence objects
Meaning / reflection / Learning / profile assertion / standing rule	remain separate interpretation, review, lesson, factual-claim, and authority lifecycles
Derivative production / derived-representation lifecycle / artifact promotion	remain separate transformation, projection-governance, and temporary-to-canonical transitions
Conversation message / conversation history / collaboration thread / channel	remain separate communication, continuity, focused-discussion, and container outcomes
Source discovery / source registration / import session / source promotion / artifact promotion	remain separate candidate, recurring-origin, bounded-intake, source-eligibility, and canonicalization transitions

Cross-cutting rule review

Owner authority, delegated authority, or explicit policy remains visible in every CRD.
Every CRD carries provenance, source linkage, or evidence expectations appropriate to its outcome.
Canonical source, temporary state, derived projection, cache, offline copy, and outward representation remain distinguishable.
PIOS-system membership, Core-contract membership, physical deployment, and state treatment are not collapsed in the alignment matrix.
Applications, pages, panels, provider products, machines, schemas, tables, hooks, and files are treated as realizations or projections unless they independently pass the Capability MLE test.
Requirements, static code-traced behavior, tested behavior, deployed behavior, and observed production behavior remain separate evidence levels.
Communication is represented as an owned Interaction Contract MLE when it exists only to communicate another capability's state.

Findings and corrections

Self-review corrections

The final historical gap pass identified canonical artifact promotion as a missing Capability MLE; it was added with separate boundaries from Result preservation and imported-source promotion.
The onboarding-specific verification CRD duplicated the generic contact-point-control outcome; it was removed and the onboarding relationship was retained as a profile and decision record.
The library README omitted one existing source-context document; the import/operations/portability context link was added.
The final restricted-code catch-up replaced stale source-unavailable placeholders. It confirmed only partial operational inspection and export composition, while preserving the absence of implemented import, package-validation, restore, parity, backup, cutover, decommissioning, erasure, and connector-reauthorization paths.

Initial independent-review findings

The independent reviewer returned REQUEST CHANGES on September 17, 2026.

The proposed head was not self-contained: capability provenance referenced anchors available only in an uncommitted framework clarification working set.
The library omitted source-composed PIOS Portability Package creation as a Capability MLE distinct from Full or Scoped Core Export Bundle creation.
Controlled sharing overlapped outward access, while outward access combined durable policy maintenance with request-time evaluation.
Recoverable backup maintenance absorbed restore and parity-test behavior that already had independent Capability MLEs.
The provenance ledger used semantic classes outside the pinned CRD method and strengthened some hedged source guidance into binding rules.

Corrective revision

Public provenance now binds only to the committed PIOS baseline; unpublished clarification text is explicitly excluded from evidence for this milestone.
compose-source-portability-package documents source-derived package creation without claiming prior Core state.
govern-outward-access now documents access-policy maintenance, evaluate-outward-access-request documents per-request enforcement, and governed sharing is limited to share delivery or activation.
Backup maintenance is limited to backup creation, custody, retention, rotation, and integrity; restore and parity remain separate capabilities.
Provenance classes were normalized to the pinned semantic vocabulary, source hedge strength was restored, and unsupported detailed cache/offline semantics were moved to draft profiles or unresolved questions.

Independent re-review findings

The re-review cleared the initial blockers and all structural separation findings, but retained REQUEST CHANGES for two source-fidelity defects:

The completed-work and daily-History CRDs still promoted source wording classified as recommended default into binding CRD invariants.
The access-request evaluator introduced challenge and indeterminate outcomes not established by its cited public evidence.

The final corrective pass moved the completed-work bundle and structured-input preference into recommended defaults and limited the sourced access-decision taxonomy to allow or deny. Any intermediate challenge profile remains unresolved rather than asserted.

Final independent-review decision

The final re-review of commit fda4a68c65dfb72f08e8ea459809b4a35eb14783 found no blocking or major issues and returned APPROVE. It reconfirmed exact-head source and anchor integrity, 117/117/117 projection parity, required CRD structure, capability decomposition, semantic-class and hedge fidelity, public/private safety, architecture distinctions, evidence-level separation, and duplicate-boundary handling. A subsequent consistency edit applied the same approved hedge treatment to the inventory, alignment, and boundary-log projections. Narrow review of commit 8fe83c6693b5fe4f38e10403fd9d48f84a497294 also returned APPROVE and reconfirmed 117/117/117 parity.

Remaining limitations before publication

Restricted implementation coverage is incomplete for many capabilities; absence of a confirmed realization is preserved rather than inferred as absence of all implementation.
The unresolved-question register contains 104 active entries through U106; profile and interoperability decisions remain intentionally open.
Repository review/merge clearance is still pending; the separate methodology review is complete.
Website implementation, route creation, rendering verification, deployment, and live publication have not started.