docs: correct site repository name, visibility, protection, and conformance coverage

.github/copilot-instructions.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ This repository is the canonical source of the workspace.json specification, JSO
 - Define contracts and deterministic reference behavior here.
 - Producer and generation orchestration belong in `workspacejson/cli`.
 - MCP, Codex, editor, and other host integrations belong in `workspacejson/integrations`.
-- Site rendering and assembled documentation belong in `workspacejson/site`.
+- Site rendering and assembled documentation belong in `workspacejson/workspacejson.dev`.
 - Never import `@marcelle-labs/*`, private Vreko source, or depend on `workspace.vreko.json`.
 - The standard is descriptive, never prescriptive.
 - The committed `.agents/workspace.json` must remain useful without a daemon.

AGENTS.md

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ This repository owns contracts, not implementations. Before adding anything, che
 
 - **No producer code.** Generation lives in `workspacejson/cli`.
 - **No host integrations.** MCP, Codex and VS Code live in `workspacejson/integrations`.
-- **No site rendering.** Documentation assembly lives in `workspacejson/site`.
+- **No site rendering.** Documentation assembly lives in `workspacejson/workspacejson.dev`.
 - **No proprietary references.** `@marcelle-labs/*`, private Vreko source and
   `workspace.vreko.json` are prohibited.
 - **Descriptive, never prescriptive.** No enforcement, approval-gate or

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ and its deterministic reference behavior. It publishes `@workspacejson/spec` and
 
 - Read [`OWNERSHIP.md`](./OWNERSHIP.md) — it states what belongs here and what
   belongs in `workspacejson/cli`, `workspacejson/integrations` or
-  `workspacejson/site`.
+  `workspacejson/workspacejson.dev`.
 - Read [`GOVERNANCE.md`](./GOVERNANCE.md) — changes to the normative surface need
   an architecture decision record **merged before** implementation. Finding that
   out after writing the code is the expensive way.

GOVERNANCE.md

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ This repository decides:
 
 It does not decide how artifacts are produced, how hosts integrate, or how the
 website presents any of it. Those live in `workspacejson/cli`,
-`workspacejson/integrations` and `workspacejson/site` respectively.
+`workspacejson/integrations` and `workspacejson/workspacejson.dev` respectively.
 [`OWNERSHIP.md`](./OWNERSHIP.md) states the full boundary; it is enforced by
 `scripts/check-architecture.mjs` in CI rather than by convention.
 

OWNERSHIP.md

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ what a coordinated authority transfer must do.
 ## Consumes
 
 - no implementation-repository internals
-- no `workspacejson/cli`, `workspacejson/integrations` or `workspacejson/site` code
+- no `workspacejson/cli`, `workspacejson/integrations` or `workspacejson/workspacejson.dev` code
 - no `@marcelle-labs/*` package, no private Vreko source, no `workspace.vreko.json`
 
 `@workspacejson/rules` depends on `@workspacejson/spec` through the shared pnpm
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ rewrites it to an exact version before publication.
 
 - producer or generation orchestration — that is `workspacejson/cli`
 - host integrations (MCP, Codex, VS Code) — that is `workspacejson/integrations`
-- site rendering or documentation assembly — that is `workspacejson/site`
+- site rendering or documentation assembly — that is `workspacejson/workspacejson.dev`
 - private Vreko behavior or any proprietary sidecar
 - **prescriptive policy** — enforcement rules, approval gates, merge blocking.
   The standard describes what a repository is; it does not dictate what a team
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ workspacejson/standard      <- depends on NONE of the others
         ↓
 workspacejson/cli       workspacejson/integrations
         \                    /
-              workspacejson/site
+   workspacejson/workspacejson.dev
 ```
 
 Proprietary repositories may consume released Apache-2.0 `@workspacejson/*`

README.md

@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ This is one of four, with one-way ownership:
 | **`workspacejson/standard`** *(this repo)* | specification, JSON Schema, standard types, validation semantics, deterministic rules, compatibility profiles, conformance fixtures, ADRs and governance |
 | `workspacejson/cli` | production and generation — the producer, repository scanning, deterministic reconciliation, CLI distribution |
 | `workspacejson/integrations` | host adapters — MCP, Codex, VS Code, skills and plugins |
-| `workspacejson/site` | assembled, published documentation at `workspacejson.dev` |
+| `workspacejson/workspacejson.dev` | assembled, published documentation at `workspacejson.dev` |
 
 Dependency direction is one-way:
 
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ workspacejson/standard
         ↓
 workspacejson/cli       workspacejson/integrations
         \                    /
-              workspacejson/site
+   workspacejson/workspacejson.dev
 ```
 
 **This repository depends on none of the other three.** That is enforced
@@ -231,17 +231,27 @@ Stated here rather than discovered later:
 - **This repository cannot publish.** Both packages are released from the
   historical repository, which holds the only credential. That is deliberate and
   enforced in CI.
-- **The schema `$id` host disagrees with the canonical domain.** The schema
-  declares the `www.` host while the package manifests use the bare domain. Both
-  serve the schema, so nothing is broken, but the strings differ. Reconciling
-  them changes schema bytes and is tracked as a normative change.
+- **The schema `$id` is reconciled on `main` but not in the released bytes.**
+  `main` declares the bare domain, matching the package manifests. The published
+  `@workspacejson/spec@0.4.4` still serves the `www.` host, because the fix
+  changes schema bytes and has not been released. Both hosts serve the schema,
+  so nothing is broken — but do not read `main` as released truth here.
 - **`v1.json` is a legacy filename**, not a claim that the format is at 1.0.
 - **Four ambient interop shims are retained** in `types/ambient.d.ts` for
   `simple-git`, `remark` and `ajv`. They are real CJS/ESM mismatches in
   third-party packages, tracked as their own work rather than papered over.
-- **The repository is private and on a plan without branch protection.** Both
-  constraints and the gate they create before any publication authority are
-  recorded in [`docs/repository-settings.md`](./docs/repository-settings.md).
+- **`main` has no enforceable independent-review path.** Branch protection is
+  enabled — required checks on Node 20/22 plus four-path producer conformance,
+  dismissed stale approvals, code-owner review, conversation resolution, and no
+  force-push or deletion. But the general `required_approving_review_count` is
+  `0`; code-owner review is enabled and does block affected pull requests, yet
+  every path in [`.github/CODEOWNERS`](./.github/CODEOWNERS) is owned solely by
+  `@qmarcelle`, who authors the changes — and an author cannot approve their own
+  pull request. Administrator enforcement is also off, so the administrator can
+  bypass the protection entirely. The controls exist; no combination of them
+  currently produces review by a second person. Recorded, with the remediation
+  it actually requires, in
+  [`docs/repository-settings.md`](./docs/repository-settings.md).
 
 ## License
 

SECURITY.md

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ This repository owns the specification, schema, types, validation semantics and
 deterministic rules. Issues in repository generation belong to
 `workspacejson/cli`; issues in host adapters belong to
 `workspacejson/integrations`; issues in the published website belong to
-`workspacejson/site`.
+`workspacejson/workspacejson.dev`.
 
 ## Publication note
 

SUPPORT.md

@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ costs you a round trip:
 | `.agents/workspace.json` is not generated, or generated wrongly | `workspacejson/cli` |
 | A repository scan produced bad or missing data | `workspacejson/cli` |
 | MCP, Codex or VS Code integration misbehaves | `workspacejson/integrations` |
-| Documentation on `workspacejson.dev` is wrong or stale | `workspacejson/site` |
+| Documentation on `workspacejson.dev` is wrong or stale | `workspacejson/workspacejson.dev` |
 
 If a validation error is *reported by* a producer but the schema itself is wrong,
 it belongs here. When in doubt, file here and it will be redirected.

docs/conformance.md

@@ -201,19 +201,55 @@ contract.
 
 Stated plainly, because a conformance document that hides them is misleading:
 
-- **There is no external conformance suite.** An independent implementation
-  cannot currently run a standard battery to claim conformance. What exists is
-  this repository's own examples and its reference validator.
+- **There is no self-service conformance battery for an unaided implementer.**
+  A producer suite exists and is described below, but running it requires a
+  candidate path supplied by the caller. An independent implementation cannot
+  yet point at a single published battery and claim conformance without that
+  step. What ships otherwise is this repository's own examples and its
+  reference validator.
 - **`validateLegacy()` has no shipped example.** All four examples are v0.3 or
   v0.4, so the legacy path is covered by unit tests but not by an executable
   fixture a third party can point at.
 - **There are no negative examples.** The examples prove that valid documents
   validate. They do not prove that invalid documents are rejected — that is
   covered only by unit tests inside the package.
-- **Producer conformance is not mechanically checked here.** The obligations
-  listed at the top of this document — `manual` preservation, material-change
-  write semantics — are stated in the contract and tested by producers, not
-  verified by a fixture in this repository.
+
+### Producer conformance IS mechanically checked here
+
+This bullet previously said the opposite. That was true when written and became
+false when the executable contract landed; it is corrected rather than quietly
+dropped.
+
+`scripts/check-producer-conformance.mjs` is the standard's assertion about what
+any conforming producer must do. It measures an external candidate — the
+producer does not grade itself:
+
+```bash
+WORKSPACEJSON_CLI_CANDIDATE=/path/to/cli/packages/cli \
+  pnpm run check:conformance
+
+pnpm run check:conformance:test   # the mutation red tests
+```
+
+It asserts five groups: `generated.fileIndex` populated from repository
+evidence, `generated.frameworkManifest` populated from repository evidence,
+`manual.*` preserved verbatim and never fabricated, invalid artifacts failing
+safely without destroying human evidence, and producer identity plus
+determinism plus direct/mediated parity. It imports this repository's own
+validator rather than re-implementing it, so there is no second source of truth
+to drift.
+
+The mutation tests assert that each mutation actually changed bytes and that
+the suite goes red *on the expected check* rather than on any failure, with a
+baseline case asserting the unmutated candidate is accepted — so the suite
+cannot pass by rejecting everything.
+
+**What it deliberately does not assert.** Nothing about per-file values inside
+`generated.fileIndex`. `FileIndexEntry` declares every value field optional, so
+`{}` is conformant. Those values are behavioral and git-derived, and whether
+they may enter the stable contract is an open determination this repository
+does not own — recorded as ADR-003 amendment A-004. Requiring them here would
+pre-empt that ruling and fail a producer that is behaving correctly.
 
 Closing these gaps is real work with real design questions, and none of it is
 claimed as done.

docs/repository-settings.md

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ now enabled:
 
 | Control | Status | Notes |
 | -- | -- | -- |
-| Branch protection | **enabled** | PR + 1 approving review + CI on Node 20/22 + conversation resolution + codeowner review + block force-push/deletion. See below. |
+| Branch protection | **enabled; no independent-review path** | PR + CI on Node 20/22 + conversation resolution + codeowner review + block force-push/deletion. **General approving-review count is `0`, the sole code owner authors the changes, and admin enforcement is off.** See below. |
 | Secret scanning | **enabled** | Free for public repositories. |
 | Secret scanning push protection | **enabled** | Blocks commits containing detected secrets. |
 | Private vulnerability reporting | **enabled** | The advisory form at [`SECURITY.md`](../SECURITY.md) now resolves. |
@@ -68,22 +68,74 @@ now enabled:
 
 ## Branch protection
 
-Branch protection is **enabled** on `main` as of 2026-07-28. The protection
-requires:
+Branch protection is **enabled** on `main` as of 2026-07-28. Measured against the
+GitHub API on 2026-08-04, it requires:
 
-- a pull request with at least one approving review;
-- required status checks: `test (20)`, `test (22)`, and `Four-path producer
-  conformance`;
+- a pull request;
+- required status checks, strict: `test (20)`, `test (22)`, and `Four-path
+  producer conformance`;
 - dismiss stale approvals on new commits;
 - require conversation resolution;
 - block force pushes and branch deletion;
-- require review from code owners, so changes to the schema, the guards and the
-  release documents reach a maintainer — see [`.github/CODEOWNERS`](../.github/CODEOWNERS).
-- enforce on admins.
+- require review from code owners — see [`.github/CODEOWNERS`](../.github/CODEOWNERS).
 
-This was a hard gate before publication authority. The protection is now in
-place, so the authority transfer in `.github/RELEASE-AUTHORITY.md` can proceed
-without creating a supply-chain window.
+Two controls this document previously claimed are **not** in place:
+
+| Claimed | Measured |
+| -- | -- |
+| a pull request with at least one approving review | `required_approving_review_count: 0` |
+| enforce on admins | `enforce_admins: false` |
+
+No ruleset supplies these separately; `GET /repos/workspacejson/standard/rulesets`
+returns `[]`.
+
+### The actual defect: no enforceable independent-review path
+
+These are four separate facts, and the defect is what they produce together —
+not any one of them alone.
+
+1. **The general approving-review count is `0`.** No count-based approval is
+   required, so paths a code-owner rule does not reach are unprotected by review.
+2. **Code-owner review is enabled and does bind.** `require_code_owner_reviews`
+   is an independent control: it blocks an affected pull request until a code
+   owner approves it, regardless of the general count. Nothing here should be
+   read as saying that control is inert — it is not.
+3. **Every path has exactly one code owner, and that owner authors the changes.**
+   [`.github/CODEOWNERS`](../.github/CODEOWNERS) assigns `*` and every specific
+   path to `@qmarcelle`. GitHub does not permit a pull-request author to approve
+   their own pull request, so a self-authored change cannot satisfy the
+   code-owner requirement from within.
+4. **Administrator enforcement is off.** `enforce_admins: false` means the
+   administrator — the same account — can bypass the protection entirely.
+
+The controls are configured. What is missing is a *second person*: no combination
+of the above currently results in a change being reviewed by someone other than
+its author.
+
+**This is not currently a credentialed package-publication risk**, because this
+repository holds no npm credential and ships no release workflow. It is not
+harmless in general — `main` here is the public canonical source of the standard,
+and unreviewed changes to the schema, the guards, or the governance documents
+land the same way.
+
+### Remediation
+
+Raising the approval count alone does not fix this. All four are required:
+
+1. **At least one independent maintainer or code owner** able to review
+   `@qmarcelle`-authored changes. Without this, nobody can satisfy point 3 above.
+2. **At least one required approval** (`required_approving_review_count >= 1`),
+   so review is required on paths no code-owner rule reaches.
+3. **Administrator enforcement**, or a no-bypass ruleset carrying a deliberately
+   bounded and documented release exception — bypass should be an explicit,
+   narrow act rather than the default posture.
+4. **Continued protection of `.github/CODEOWNERS` itself**, so the ownership map
+   cannot be edited to route around the requirement. This is already in place at
+   `.github/CODEOWNERS:29` and must survive any change made for points 1–3.
+
+`.github/RELEASE-AUTHORITY.md` and the migration plan both treat protected,
+reviewed release paths as a precondition for holding a credential. This must be
+closed *before* publication authority transfers, not after.
 
 ## Repository metadata