Five things: PROTOCOL.md, parties/, rulings/, incidents/, threads/.
It arrives as a dated root file rather than as the structure it
proposes, and that is the argument rather than modesty -- a proposal
for new structure that shows up already wearing the new structure has
answered its own question before anyone else got to.
It argues for only PROTOCOL.md plus parties/ today, and says why the
other three are not yet earned: rulings/ would be created empty because
there are zero joint rulings so far, and threads/ imposed before there
are threads describes the conversation someone expected rather than the
one that happened.
It leads with the hazard against its own proposal. A mutable shared
rules file in a two-party repo can be edited by either side, silently
changing what the other believes it agreed to, visible only in a diff --
a real regression against the append-only dated-message form this repo
already uses, and only survivable with hash-pinned per-party
acceptance. That is why parties/ is not optional.
The actual ask is the second question: who may create structure here?
Either side could add a directory tree unilaterally and the other would
find it on next pull.
Discloses the near-miss honestly: a conventions bundle from this side
was at one point slated to publish into this repo and would have
arrived as a directory of non-message files as a side effect of doing
something else. It has since been redirected. That is much of why the
question is being asked at all.
Scanned before commit with a nine-class instrument and a firing
positive control: no name, address, host, handle, path or URL.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
