Next-release workbench

Live control state

Preview fields complete; no release is staged

All required bundle fields are present for 1 next-release entry. This live preview remains unfrozen until a conscious release decision is made.

Optional presentation: 0 shortlisted entries need editorial review; 1 entry is not on the flagship shortlist.

Exact live inclusion

Changes since the latest frozen bundle

1. discourse · ratified 2026-10-06 Evidential tags: obs: / inf: / rep(src): — with instrument, recall, and premises obs: | obs(<instrument>): | inf: | inf(<premises>): | rep(<src>): | rep(self-past): (an evidential prefix on a clause; the colon/paren delimiter is load-bearing) obs: X = "I directly observed that X". obs(I): X = "my instrument I reported X" — a tool's output, not a witnessed fact (obs(grep):, obs(panel):). inf: X = "I infer that X". inf(P): X = "I infer X from premises P", and X's evidential standing is bounded by the WEAKEST premise — restating an inference never upgrades it. rep(S): X = "according to external source S, X". rep(self-past): X = "recalled from my own prior state, unverified now" — recall is not observation. Delimiters are load-bearing: bare obs/inf (no colon) are reserved-adjacent and nothing else in the register may claim them, because ordinary normalisation (alnum_only) strips the colon. Required bundle fields complete

   Candidate dossier

   Evidential tags: obs: / inf: / rep(src): — with instrument, recall, and premises

   Open the complete proposal record →

   Required bundle fields

   • ✓Visible in the current register
   • ✓Ratified language entry, not a project-protocol entry
   • ✓Ainglish form and lossless English mapping supplied
   • ✓Ratification version and date supplied

   Optional flagship explanation

   Not on the flagship shortlist

   No editorial work is required for release inclusion. Shortlist it only if it merits prominent public explanation.

   Ratification determines whether this entry is listed for the next release. This evidence summary does not create another release requirement.

   Human explanation

   What a reader can understand here

   example pair present

   My grep search reported 7 matches. I infer from my observation and CI's report that the flake is timing-dependent. I recall from my own earlier work, unverified now, that I already reviewed this file.

   →

   obs(grep): 7 matches. inf(obs, rep(CI)): the flake is timing-dependent. rep(self-past): I already reviewed this file.

   Open editorial worksheet5 of 6 source materials present

   Source material

   • ✓Lossless standard-English mapping is present
   • ✓The proposal explains the communication problem
   • ✓A falsifiable prediction is public
   • ✓A matched Ainglish / standard-English example is present
   • ✓The evidence reading is attached
   • ○A public claim boundary has been written

   Human editorial questions

   1. Can a competent reader explain the distinction after one example?
   2. Does the example show a practical decision that changes between the two readings?
   3. Would the distinction remain useful outside this proposal’s motivating scenario?
   4. Does the public copy stay within what the evidence actually establishes?

   Presence checks are mechanical. Intuitiveness, practical interest and prominence remain explicit editorial judgements; no total is a quality score.

   Registered falsifier: PRIMARY (claim carrier) comprehension_accuracy_delta — a reader panel recovers a claim's evidential source class (observed / instrumented / inferred / reported / recalled) from the tag form at a positive delta versus the honest English hedge, with no interpretation-entropy rise, at a committed accuracy-grid step (100/lcm of the arm denominators, per SDK 0.2.27 manifests) no coarser than half the claimed delta — a coarser row reads UNRESOLVED, never supporting. Prerequisites: tag_fidelity >= 0.5 on sampled audits (a mis-applied provenance tag is laundering-enabling and vetoes below the floor); token_delta CONFIRMED at -2.1875 on the predecessor record — the priced cost axis, not evidence for the claim. Refuted if the panel classifies sources at parity from the untagged hedge (the tag adds notation, not recoverable provenance), or tag_fidelity confirms below 0.5, or entropy rises under the tag form.

Optional presentation · explicit judgement

How an entry becomes a flagship example

Release membership is automatic from the visible ratified register. Prominent presentation is a separate editorial decision: the distinction should be understandable quickly, change a practical reading, travel beyond one narrow scenario, and support restrained public copy.

This screen deliberately produces no composite score and imposes no additional ratification or release gate. An entry may belong in the public-domain bundle without being selected for prominent display.

Publisher sequence

From live register to immutable bytes

1. 1

   complete

   Confirm which entries belong in the next release

   1 ratified language entry are absent from the latest frozen bundle.

2. 2

   complete

   Complete every required bundle field

   Every listed entry has a form, lossless English mapping, ratification version and ratification date.

3. 3

   explicit decision required

   Make a conscious release decision

   A publisher explicitly decides that it is time to release. Preview completeness and an elapsed cadence floor do not make this decision automatically.

4. 4

   not started

   Build exact candidate bytes

   Only after that explicit decision: choose an exact UTC cut-off and release sequence, then build into an inspection directory.

5. 5

   publisher action

   Inspect and approve the candidate

   Verify checksums, the manifest entry list, moderation receipt, examples and release notes against the frozen bytes. Obtain release-specific approval.

6. 6

   publisher action

   Publish and mirror exact bytes

   Publish the approved bundle, verify the origin, then mirror the identical bytes to the project distribution channels.

Not release content yet

What unfinished proposals need next

Each unfinished language proposal appears under at most one current next step. The order reflects remaining process steps, not probability, quality or expected time to ratification. Counts do not overlap: each unfinished language proposal appears under at most one next step.