Open independent validation and publication program

INDEPENDENT_IMPLEMENTATION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+# Call for independent implementations
+
+LLM Errata needs independently authored adapters and a separately produced
+validator before it can claim interoperability.
+
+Repository: https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata
+
+Current verdict: **NOT_PROD_READY**.
+
+## Requested work
+
+Implement one adapter from the published schemas, vectors, and conformance
+requirements without copying implementation code from `prototype/`.
+
+Candidate substrates include:
+
+- file-backed Markdown or knowledge-base memory;
+- vector memory;
+- graph memory;
+- an agent framework's durable memory store; and
+- an intentionally opaque or incomplete importer.
+
+The implementation must preserve correction, supersession, and erasure as
+different operations; quarantine affected state before repair; run negative,
+positive, and preservation checks; and report `partial`, `unknown`, or `failed`
+without converting missing evidence into success.
+
+## Independence and evidence
+
+An implementation report must name its authors, repository and commit, supported
+specification version, dependencies, test commands, unsupported behavior, and
+licence. Shared conformance vectors are expected. Shared reference-adapter code
+disqualifies the implementation as independent evidence.
+
+The current personal-use licence requires written permission to implement the
+specification. Open a GitHub issue naming the research or standards scope,
+repository, organization, requested version, and intended publication. A
+permission grant does not imply technical endorsement.
+

PHASE3_SYSTEMS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# Phase 3 system nominations
+
+LLM Errata is seeking nominations for three independently operated AI-memory
+systems for a synthetic-data interoperability experiment.
+
+Repository: https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata
+
+Current verdict: **NOT_PROD_READY**. The experiment has not started.
+
+## Required experiment shape
+
+One synthetic memory root must receive a correction, supersession, and erasure
+across three independently operated systems. The set must include:
+
+- one intentionally nonconforming importer;
+- one system whose coverage is genuinely incomplete or opaque; and
+- at least one system capable of recording derivation across mixed artifacts.
+
+Measurements include observation-to-quarantine time, known-descendant coverage,
+stale-behavior rate, replacement activation, collateral retention, stale-reimport
+resistance, opaque coverage, operator effort, and user-visible friction.
+
+## Nomination requirements
+
+Please name:
+
+- system, operator, public documentation, and version;
+- memory stores and derivation surfaces exposed;
+- API, account, cost, and data-residency requirements;
+- deletion, correction, export, and audit capabilities;
+- known opaque stores or unsupported coverage; and
+- whether the operator can authorize a synthetic experiment and publish results.
+
+Nomination is not approval. Every system, account, integration, cost, and
+interaction requires explicit owner authorization before the experiment begins.
+

REVIEW_REQUEST.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Independent review request
+
+LLM Errata is seeking independent technical review of an experimental
+conformance proposal for repairing derived AI memory after a post-export
+correction, supersession, or erasure.
+
+Repository: https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata
+
+Current verdict: **NOT_PROD_READY**.
+
+## Reviews requested
+
+### Novelty and conformance review
+
+Challenge the narrow conjunction in `RESEARCH.md` and `PRIOR_ART.md`. Identify
+any earlier public implementation or normative profile that requires all of:
+
+1. post-export update delivery to prior importers;
+2. importer-side quarantine and repair of known local descendants;
+3. negative, positive, and preservation verification; and
+4. a signed, coverage-aware callback bound to the event and importer state.
+
+Partial collisions are valuable and should narrow the proposal.
+
+### Security and distributed-systems review
+
+Review authorization, sequencing, rollback, equivocation, quarantine ordering,
+lineage gaps, opaque coverage, receipt binding, erasure confidentiality, key
+lifecycle, retries, and incomplete stores. Find the smallest counterexample that
+breaks an invariant or makes the contract impractical.
+
+## Required review record
+
+Please identify:
+
+- your name or stable public identity;
+- reviewed commit SHA and date;
+- files and behavior reviewed;
+- prior work or standards relied upon;
+- blocking, major, and minor findings;
+- conflicts of interest or prior involvement; and
+- verdict: proceed, narrow, redesign, or retire.
+
+Open a GitHub issue for public findings. Security-sensitive findings must follow
+`SECURITY.md`. Review invitations and automated reviews are not independent
+evidence for the production-readiness ledger.
+

docs/PUBLICATION_LOG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# Publication log
+
+## Published
+
+| Date | Channel | Artifact | URL | Status |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 2026-08-12 | GitHub Issues | Independent review request | https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata/issues/4 | Open |
+| 2026-08-12 | GitHub Issues | Independent implementation call | https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata/issues/5 | Open |
+| 2026-08-12 | GitHub Issues | Phase 3 system nominations | https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata/issues/6 | Open |
+
+All three artifacts state `NOT_PROD_READY` or explicitly deny that the named
+experiment has started. Invitations do not constitute external evidence and do
+not change any readiness gate.
+
+## Attempted but blocked
+
+| Date | Channel | Evidence | Result |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 2026-08-12 | Hacker News | Submission page requested login | Not published |
+| 2026-08-12 | LinkedIn | Feed redirected to login | Not published |
+| 2026-08-12 | Reddit | No authenticated editor could be verified | Not published |
+| 2026-08-12 | DEV Community | New-post page displayed sign-in providers | Not published |
+| 2026-08-12 | Medium | New-story page redirected to sign-in | Not published |
+| 2026-08-12 | X | Installed CLI lacked complete explicit authentication | Not published |
+
+No accounts were created, credentials entered, or platform protections bypassed.
+Each channel can be retried after the owner authenticates an existing account
+and current platform/community rules are checked.
+
+## Deferred channels
+
+- Zenodo or OSF: wait for a stable reviewed release suitable for archival DOI.
+- arXiv: wait for a paper-quality manuscript and independent experimental evidence.
+- standards venues: wait for external conformance review and interoperability
+  evidence; outreach must not imply adoption or endorsement.
+
+## Blocked implementation evidence
+
+The 2026-08-12 provider-neutral semantic-probe implementation was not published
+as completed. Five task-review rounds ended with a remaining high-severity
+privacy finding: provider exception class names could enter persisted erasure
+limitations. Phase 2 item 6 and G2 therefore remain blocked.
+

docs/PUBLICATION_STRATEGY.md

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+# Publication strategy
+
+## Canonical destination
+
+Every publication points to:
+
+https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata
+
+Substantive prior-art, conformance, implementation, or security findings return
+to traceable GitHub issues, pull requests, or private security reports.
+
+## Message
+
+**Problem:** portable AI memory can be corrected at its source while stale local
+summaries, embeddings, profiles, graphs, and caches remain active elsewhere.
+
+**Proposal:** importers observe authenticated errata, quarantine known
+descendants, rebuild from valid inputs, test absence/replacement/preservation,
+and attest honestly—including `unknown` coverage.
+
+**Bounded claim:** reviewed sources contain the individual mechanisms, but no
+reviewed public implementation or normative profile required the complete
+conjunction at the dated cutoff.
+
+**Status:** experimental conformance proposal and tested reference
+implementation; `NOT_PROD_READY`; no independent interoperability evidence yet.
+
+**Call:** find prior art, break the invariants, review the conformance surface,
+or independently implement an adapter.
+
+## Channel matrix
+
+| Channel | Audience | Primary request | Publication gate |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| GitHub | implementers and reviewers | issues, review, adapters | repository and CI current |
+| Hacker News | systems and open-source engineers | falsification and prior art | concise factual submission |
+| LinkedIn | named researchers and standards experts | independent reviewers | authenticated author account |
+| X | AI-memory practitioners | reviewer and implementer referrals | authenticated account |
+| Reddit | focused technical communities | critique, not promotion | subreddit rules checked |
+| DEV Community | developers | reproducible technical walkthrough | authenticated account |
+| Medium | broader technical readers | explanatory article | authenticated account |
+| Zenodo/OSF | citable archival record | archive release and evidence | stable reviewed release |
+| arXiv | academic readers | paper and experiments | paper-quality manuscript |
+
+## Canonical short announcement
+
+> If an AI imports a memory, should it also accept responsibility for future
+> corrections? LLM Errata is an experimental vendor-neutral conformance proposal:
+> observe an authenticated correction, quarantine known descendants, rebuild
+> from valid inputs, run negative/positive/preservation checks, and return a
+> signed receipt that admits unknown coverage. The repository includes prior-art
+> collisions, schemas, vectors, a runnable reference implementation, and explicit
+> falsifiers. It is NOT_PROD_READY and needs independent review and adapters:
+> https://github.com/thomaswillner/llm-errata
+
+## Hacker News title
+
+`LLM Errata – making corrections follow portable AI memory`
+
+## LinkedIn opening
+
+`An imported AI memory is a dependency, not a copy.`
+
+The post should ask AI-memory, distributed-systems, privacy, and standards
+specialists to review the exact four-part conjunction and identify collisions.
+
+## Publication evidence
+
+For every successful post, record channel, URL, publication timestamp, account,
+source commit, exact copy digest, and moderation state. A submitted or queued
+post is not recorded as publicly available until its URL is accessible.
+

docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-12-semantic-probes-and-publication.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+# Semantic Probes and Publication Implementation Plan
+
+> **For agentic workers:** REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:subagent-driven-development (recommended) or superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task. Steps use checkbox (`- [ ]`) syntax for tracking.
+
+**Goal:** Complete the internal Phase 2 semantic-probe surface, publish independent-review and implementation calls, and expose the work through an evidence-bounded draft PR.
+
+**Architecture:** A provider-neutral semantic module records exact verifier configuration and validates structured observations. A recorded-fixture adapter makes conformance deterministic and offline. Publication artifacts remain documentation and GitHub calls; they never change readiness gates without external evidence.
+
+**Tech Stack:** Python 3.11+ standard library, `dataclasses`, `enum`, `hashlib`, `json`, `argparse`, `unittest`, GitHub Actions.
+
+## Global Constraints
+
+- Preserve correction, supersession, and erasure as distinct operations.
+- Preserve quarantine-before-repair and negative-positive-preservation semantics.
+- Never convert missing, inconclusive, malformed, configuration-drifted, or provider-error evidence into success.
+- Erasure reports and fixtures must not retain the erased value.
+- `make check` remains offline, standard-library-only, and green.
+- Internal implementation cannot change G2 from `BLOCKED`; dated independent review is also required.
+- Publication must state `NOT_PROD_READY` and link the canonical repository.
+
+---
+
+### Task 1: Provider-neutral semantic evidence model
+
+**Files:**
+- Create: `prototype/semantic.py`
+- Test: `tests/test_semantic.py`
+
+**Interfaces:**
+- Produces: `ProbeKind`, `ObservationVerdict`, `SemanticCoverage`, `SemanticProbe`, `VerifierConfig`, `SemanticObservation`, `SemanticProbeReport`, `SemanticVerifier`, `RecordedSemanticVerifier`, and `SemanticProbeRunner`.
+
+- [ ] Write tests for canonical configuration digests, all-pass verification, required failure, inconclusive/error/missing/duplicate/configuration-drift results, deterministic serialization, and erasure non-disclosure.
+- [ ] Run `python3 -m unittest tests.test_semantic -v` and confirm the new module is missing.
+- [ ] Implement immutable data models, canonical JSON serialization, strict parsing, the verifier protocol, recorded adapter, and fail-closed aggregation.
+- [ ] Run the focused tests and confirm they pass.
+- [ ] Commit with `feat: add provider-neutral semantic probe evidence`.
+
+### Task 2: Offline conformance fixtures and CLI
+
+**Files:**
+- Create: `spec/semantic/probes.json`
+- Create: `spec/semantic/verifier-config.json`
+- Create: `spec/semantic/observations.json`
+- Modify: `prototype/cli.py`
+- Modify: `spec/README.md`
+- Modify: `prototype/README.md`
+- Test: `tests/test_cli.py`
+- Test: `tests/test_semantic.py`
+
+**Interfaces:**
+- Consumes: strict `from_dict` methods and `SemanticProbeRunner.run` from Task 1.
+- Produces: `errata semantic-test --probes PATH --config PATH --observations PATH` with exit `0`, `1`, or `2`.
+
+- [ ] Add failing CLI tests for verified, failed, and unknown fixture sets plus malformed input.
+- [ ] Add synthetic manifests containing no real or erased personal data.
+- [ ] Implement the CLI command and canonical JSON report output.
+- [ ] Document fixture format, command, exit codes, privacy boundary, and provider-adapter seam.
+- [ ] Run focused CLI and semantic tests.
+- [ ] Commit with `feat: publish semantic probe conformance fixtures`.
+
+### Task 3: Readiness, roadmap, and publication integration
+
+**Files:**
+- Modify: `ROADMAP.md`
+- Modify: `README.md`
+- Modify: `PRODUCTION_READINESS.md`
+- Modify: `readiness/production-readiness.json`
+- Modify: `CHANGELOG.md`
+- Modify: `PUBLISHING.md`
+- Modify: `scripts/validate_repo.py`
+- Modify: `tests/test_validate_repo.py`
+
+**Interfaces:**
+- Consumes: Task 1 and Task 2 artifacts.
+- Produces: accurate Phase 2 item 6 implementation status while G2 remains `BLOCKED` pending independent review.
+
+- [ ] Add regression tests requiring review and implementation-call artifacts and preventing Phase 2 completion from upgrading G2.
+- [ ] Update maturity language, roadmap status, evidence references, and publication workflow.
+- [ ] Run `make check` and `git diff --check`.
+- [ ] Commit with `docs: open independent LLM Errata validation program`.
+
+### Task 4: Review, push, and public GitHub calls
+
+**Files:**
+- Review all changes from the branch base.
+
+**Interfaces:**
+- Produces: pushed branch, draft PR, reviewer recruitment issue, independent-implementation issue, and public URL ledger.
+
+- [ ] Conduct separate specification and code-quality review; repair every load-bearing finding.
+- [ ] Run `make check`, `make links`, `git diff --check`, and secret-safe staged-content inspection.
+- [ ] Push `agent/g2-publication` and create a draft PR targeting `agent/prod-readiness` until PR #3 merges.
+- [ ] Create GitHub issues for independent review, implementation permission/recruitment, and Phase 3 system nominations.
+- [ ] Publish authenticated external announcements where platform access and rules permit, then record exact URLs without upgrading readiness gates.
+