Skip to content

Public Trust Surface Maintenance

This repository has several public trust surfaces that must move together.

flowchart LR
    A[Runtime docs] --> E[Unified public trust story]
    B[Evidence-book guides] --> E
    C[Release and quality guides] --> E
    D[Package metadata and READMEs] --> E

Surfaces To Review Together

  • runtime architecture pages
  • native workflow guides
  • release review guides
  • evidence-book navigation guides
  • package metadata and package READMEs

Why This Matters

If those surfaces drift, the repository can start looking broader, cleaner, or more mature than its governed evidence actually supports.

Questions To Ask

  • Does the architecture section still describe the real package and runtime ownership split?
  • Do workflow guides still match the supported native and wrapper-backed surfaces?
  • Does the release review guide still point to the real governed report and gate surfaces?
  • Does the evidence-book overview avoid stale or contradictory summary claims?
  • Do package metadata and package README links reinforce the same public story?

Common Failure Pattern

The common failure is not one missing page. It is partial alignment:

  • workflow pages get updated
  • architecture pages stay stale
  • evidence pages still summarize old status
  • release pages still describe the previous review flow

That is when the repository starts looking polished in fragments instead of coherent as one release surface.

Maintainer Rule

When one trust surface changes materially, do not stop after updating the most obvious page. Keep going until the runtime docs, evidence guides, release guides, and package surfaces tell the same story at the same level of confidence.