diff --git a/PROVIDER_CONFORMANCE_PROPOSAL.md b/PROVIDER_CONFORMANCE_PROPOSAL.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d4df9ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/PROVIDER_CONFORMANCE_PROPOSAL.md
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+# Proposal: shared provider behavior checks
+
+Status: draft for maintainer discussion. This proposal adds no framework,
+provider changes, or CI gates. Provider-local tests remain the default.
+
+## Problem
+
+A provider can pass tests built around a lossy transcript while omitting
+failures or pre-compaction history available in another file. Grok support in
+[PR #23](https://github.com/wilbeibi/catchup/pull/23) exposed a second example: a checkpoint fixture with one summary record
+missed the real format's two `compaction_meta` records, so the parser returned
+injected context without the actual summary. A generic non-empty-entry check
+would not have caught that defect either.
+
+The framework removed from #23 added 517 lines of test support and provider
+tests, plus a 25-line repository-wide PR template. Its gates searched Go source
+for helper calls and package comments for phrases. Those checks did not prove
+that a provider read the right file or preserved its format's meaning.
+
+## Options
+
+| Approach | Benefit | Maintenance cost |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Extend existing provider tests | Direct expected timelines from real formats; no new shared mechanism | Repeats a few list/resolve assertions |
+| Small opt-in behavior helper | Reuses repeated list/resolve/read assertions where fixtures already exist | Adds a shared test dependency and requires evidence it catches distinct defects |
+| Mandatory framework and source-scanning gates | Enforces a uniform convention | More fixtures and registries; helper-call or comment checks can pass without protecting behavior |
+
+Recommend the first approach now. Consider the second only after identifying
+repeated, unprotected behavior that cannot be covered economically by existing
+tables. Do not restore the third approach.
+
+## Acceptance criteria for a later implementation
+
+- Exercise `session.Provider` through List, Resolve and Read. Never inspect
+  source syntax or require wording in comments.
+- Reuse existing fixtures. Pin expected session IDs and observable outcomes
+  independently of parser output; do not derive a query oracle from that output.
+- Keep format-specific timestamps, failure details, compaction and visibility
+  expectations in provider tests. Missing fixture coverage is not evidence that
+  an agent lacks a capability.
+- Give each contract one test owner. A shared check must replace equivalent
+  assertions or catch a demonstrated omission; it must not add another layer
+  over the same input and expectation.
+- Demonstrate each check failing under the relevant behavior change. Report
+  added and removed lines separately for test support, fixtures and docs.
+- Keep runtime providers unchanged and obtain maintainer agreement on the
+  measured benefit before expanding the helper across the repository.
+
+## Decision requested
+
+Is there a recurring List/Resolve/Read contract worth sharing after the focused
+Grok tests land? If so, select that contract and two existing fixtures for a
+small follow-up. The Grok provider does not depend on accepting this proposal.