docs(1.0): declare the scope; rule that the RC must run against an adopter

Two maintainer decisions, recorded where the gate lives.

**G3a — DECLARED.** What Metamodel 1.0 covers is the vocabulary named by
expected-registry.json at the cut commit, plus the canonical format and the wire
contract; everything outstanding only ADDS to that set. The declaration is
deliberately the weaker claim — NOT "the vocabulary is finished", since FR-024's
declared-API tier and FR-034's ecosystem tier are both real and both unbuilt,
but that finishing them is additive, so freezing now costs an adopter nothing.
Backed by three checks: zero experimental markers in the registry, every
remaining roadmap item additive, and all three open issues CLI surfaces over
vocabulary that already exists. The bullet says to RE-RUN those at the cut
commit, because the declaration is about the manifest that ships.

**G3d — RULED: the RC must be exercised against a real adopter, and it BLOCKS.**
Publish the RC, wire it into an adopter's CI with the drift gate ENFORCED,
run gen + verify + a migration, fix what it finds, then promote.

The argument against is recorded rather than dropped, because it is a real cost
and the decision should stay legible: all six known adopters are maintainer-owned,
so this is closer to self-validation than independent evidence, and it makes the
cut wait on a repository that is not the one being frozen. It was heard and
rejected. A conformance corpus gates the five ports AGAINST EACH OTHER and never
against use — every port can agree perfectly on a contract that is wrong in
practice. 0.24.3 and 0.24.5 are the precedent: both were largely defects found by
running the documented path, which nothing in this repo was asking.

So the open path to 1.0 is now G3d, then G1/G2/G4 — all mechanics after it.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01At3v6M6uqECZ2Sb5eUv6YY

Author: dmealing

AGENTS.md

@@ -24,11 +24,14 @@ longer asks for "one coordinated release with no metamodel-breaking change." It
 variable the maintainer sets, and it had already converged — `metamodelVersion` held at `0.13`
 across `v0.24.2`–`v0.24.5`, four consecutive releases — before `0.25.0` spent the breaking slot
 by decision. It is replaced by **G3a** (declared scope covered, nothing outstanding needs new
-vocabulary), **G3b** (DONE — `docs/compatibility-policy.md` carries the *correction bar*: the
-three-part test under which input that never had a valid meaning may stop loading in a PATCH,
-explicitly NOT covering retirement of vocabulary that worked) and **G3c** (DONE — the migration
-guide and compat policy are current at the cut). Ruling in ADR-0035 **Amendment 3**. Do not
-reintroduce a waiting gate in any form.
+vocabulary — **DECLARED 2026-09-07**), **G3b** (DONE — `docs/compatibility-policy.md` carries
+the *correction bar*: the three-part test under which input that never had a valid meaning may
+stop loading in a PATCH, explicitly NOT covering retirement of vocabulary that worked), **G3c**
+(DONE — the migration guide and compat policy are current at the cut) and **G3d** (OPEN, and the
+one gate now blocking the cut — an adopter estate must run the RELEASE CANDIDATE with the drift
+gate ENFORCED before promote; ruled 2026-09-07 knowing all six adopters are maintainer-owned,
+because a conformance corpus gates the ports against each other and never against use). Ruling
+in ADR-0035 **Amendment 3**. Do not reintroduce a waiting gate in any form.
 
 
 **TypeScript reference implementation** is **published to npm at `0.25.0`** (14 `@metaobjectsdev/*` publish candidates on the `latest` tag, full lockstep; the two `angular` packages are versioned on their own `0.6.x` line and are **NOT published to npm — source-only by decision** (ADR-0048): they build in-repo, and stay off the registry until they meet the ADR's promotion bar). C# at `0.25.0` (NuGet); Python at `0.25.0` (PyPI); Java / Kotlin at `7.25.0` (Maven Central). **The four registries no longer move in lockstep — since `0.24.5` a registry publishes only when it has a changed product file**, and when it does it adopts the shared `minor.patch` then current, skipping the numbers it sat out (ADR-0035 Amendment 1 / `docs/RELEASING.md`). Two carve-outs: the 14 npm packages still move atomically with each other, and a change to `expected-registry.json` / `metamodelVersion` still forces all four. So a lagging number is INFORMATION — PyPI at `0.25.0` while npm is at `0.25.2` says PyPI has had no product change since `0.25.0`.

docs/1.0-readiness.md

@@ -173,7 +173,8 @@ Status legend: ✅ done · 🔶 in progress · ⬜ not started · ❓ **[RATIFY]
   `→8.0.0`, freeze the spec version at `Metamodel 1.0` (C4). Both forward; no
   backwards move on any registry.
 - ⬜ **G2. Remove the deprecated export** if A3=remove (one-time).
-- 🔶 **G3. Scope declared, promise livable, publications current.**
+- 🔶 **G3. Scope declared, promise livable, publications current, RC exercised.**
+  *(G3a/G3b/G3c done; **G3d is the one open gate** and it blocks G1.)*
 
   **RULING (2026-09-06, maintainer): the quiet-period criterion is RETIRED. It measured
   the wrong variable.** G3 used to read *"at least one coordinated release after the last
@@ -206,9 +207,20 @@ Status legend: ✅ done · 🔶 in progress · ⬜ not started · ❓ **[RATIFY]
 
   **What replaces it:**
 
-  - 🔶 **G3a — the declared scope is covered, and no known gap needs NEW vocabulary.**
-    State what Metamodel 1.0 covers and show every outstanding item is additive. **The
-    evidence is assembled (2026-09-06); what remains is the maintainer declaring it.**
+  - ✅ **G3a — the declared scope is covered, and no known gap needs NEW vocabulary.**
+    **DECLARED 2026-09-07 (maintainer).**
+
+    > **What Metamodel 1.0 covers** is the registered vocabulary named by
+    > `fixtures/registry-conformance/expected-registry.json` at the cut commit, together
+    > with the canonical authoring/interchange format and the wire contract — the set
+    > `docs/compatibility-policy.md` lists under "Covered by the METAMODEL version."
+    > **Everything still outstanding only ADDS to that set. Nothing outstanding changes or
+    > removes any part of it.**
+
+    The declared claim is deliberately the weaker one. It is **not** "the vocabulary is
+    finished" — FR-024's declared-API tier and FR-034's ecosystem tier are both real, both
+    wanted, and both still unbuilt. It is that finishing them is *additive*, so freezing
+    now costs an adopter nothing later. Three checks back it:
 
     1. **Nothing in the registry is experimental.** `expected-registry.json` carries zero
        `experimental` markers, and `docs/compatibility-policy.md` already excludes
@@ -224,10 +236,10 @@ Status legend: ✅ done · 🔶 in progress · ⬜ not started · ❓ **[RATIFY]
        (#306), enforcing the already-shipped `@deprecated` (#305), and `meta fmt` (#304) —
        are CLI surfaces and enforcement over vocabulary that already exists.
 
-    The claim to declare is therefore not "the vocabulary is complete" but the weaker and
-    true one: **completing it later adds, and never changes or removes.** That is what
-    ADR-0035 §1 already promises by excluding reserved-but-unregistered vocabulary from the
-    compat surface; G3a is where the project states it has checked, rather than assumed it.
+    ADR-0035 §1 already promises this by excluding reserved-but-unregistered vocabulary
+    from the compat surface. G3a is where the project records that it **checked**, rather
+    than assumed. Re-run the three checks at the cut commit before G1 — the declaration is
+    about the manifest that ships, not the one that was current when this was written.
   - ✅ **G3b — the 1.0 promise is livable: the correction bar is ratified.** DONE
     2026-09-06. `docs/compatibility-policy.md` now carries *"Correcting input we wrongly
     accepted"* — the three-part bar under which a form that never had a valid meaning may
@@ -242,6 +254,27 @@ Status legend: ✅ done · 🔶 in progress · ⬜ not started · ❓ **[RATIFY]
     ended at the `0.24.0` batch and carried none of `0.24.1`'s two refusals or `0.25.0`'s
     six breaks; both are written now. Re-check this at the cut commit, not before it.
 
+  - ⬜ **G3d — an adopter estate runs the RELEASE CANDIDATE before promote.**
+    **RULED 2026-09-07 (maintainer): this DOES block the cut.**
+
+    Concretely: publish the RC, wire it into a real adopter's CI with the drift gate
+    ENFORCED (not advisory), run `meta gen` + `meta verify` + a migration against that
+    estate, and fix what it finds before promoting. This is the evidence half that replaces
+    the retired quiet period — real usage instead of a calendar.
+
+    **The argument against it was heard and rejected, and is recorded so the decision is
+    legible.** All six known adopters are maintainer-owned, so this is closer to
+    self-validation than to independent evidence, and it makes the cut wait on work in a
+    repository that is not the one being frozen. The ruling is that it is still worth it:
+    a conformance corpus gates the five ports **against each other**, never against use,
+    and every port could agree perfectly on a contract that is wrong in practice. The
+    `0.24.3` and `0.24.5` lines are the precedent — both were largely defects found by
+    *running the documented path*, which no gate in this repo was asking.
+
+    Pairs with **F2**, which asks the same question from the adoption-maturity side. F2 is
+    satisfied by an adopter reaching Deep/Exemplary with the gate wired; G3d additionally
+    requires that the RC specifically — not a released version — is what got exercised.
+
   **Deliberately NOT a gate: another waiting period, in any form.** Neither a release
   count, a calendar window, nor "one more quiet cut." If a replacement gate is ever
   proposed whose pass condition is the passage of time or the absence of our own recent
@@ -259,4 +292,5 @@ were stale and are corrected. The last breaking metamodel move is `0.25.0` / `7.
 (`metamodelVersion` `0.14`); A1 ratified — decouple._
 
 _Owner: maintainer. Update the status marks as items land. All four §A decisions are
-ratified; the open path to the cut is G3a, then G1/G2/G4._
+ratified. **The open path to the cut is G3d — run the RC against a real adopter estate
+with the drift gate enforced — then G1/G2/G4.**_