Governed candidate delivery

Governed candidate delivery is a public-safe, bounded capability explainer for customer administrators and adoption leads. It describes how a documented candidate is checked against an approved source boundary before a reader decides whether a narrowly scoped adoption conversation is useful. The page explains evidence and constraints, not a promised customer result, technical performance, security result, price, availability, or implementation outcome. Its references are limited to the three logical sources sealed by the authority manifest. If a source fact is missing, stale, conflicting, or not public-safe, the responsible reader records that unresolved gap instead of turning an assumption into guidance.

How validation and constraints work

Validation starts with the sealed authority manifest, which names the approved logical source IDs. The source registry then supplies the public-safe record for each ID, including its authority class, locator, revision, digest, and disclosure. The page header and its registry entry are compared for one page identity, path, title, visibility, customer audiences, reading modes, claim references, and source references. Deterministic product checks and projection checks can then establish consistency across those product inputs. That result is product evidence about the documented candidate; it is not a platform attestation, an independent review result, an approval, or a publication decision. A constraint or mismatch remains a visible blocker until an authorized source resolves it.

Adopt safely

Begin with one bounded documentation use case and write down the claims and evidence that a customer administrator or adoption lead would need to assess it. Compare those needs with the three approved source records and the facts present in the candidate. Mark every unsupported, missing, stale, or conflicting item as an unresolved gap, and ask for a named authority follow-up when one is needed. The safe next adoption action is a scoped, reversible fit conversation or named-authority follow-up that leaves the candidate parked while the gap is clarified. This action does not promise an outcome and does not perform approval, promotion, publication, scheduling, rollback, pointer creation, or any live-directory write.

Approved sources and limits

The authority manifest identifies exactly three logical sources for this explainer. Their registry records are public-safe and provide the permitted traceability boundary; they do not authorize the page to extend platform authority or to copy private governance material. The source records support the validation flow and the stated delivery limits, but they do not establish customer outcomes or technical capabilities beyond those recorded facts. A reader should stop at the boundary when a source reference cannot be matched or its disclosure is not public-safe.

These are source references, not a new authority grant. The candidate-only boundary remains in force even when the product checks pass: a check can show that the page and its registered references agree, but it cannot create publication authority, a release pointer, a live release, or a live directory.

Frequently asked questions

Is a documented candidate the same as general availability?

No. A documented candidate is a bounded, candidate-only state that remains parked while its approved source boundary and product evidence are examined. Reading this page or passing deterministic product checks does not establish general availability. Those checks can support a product conclusion about the documented candidate, but they are not a platform attestation or independent review and do not create approval, promotion, publication, scheduling, rollback, a release pointer, or a live-directory write. Treat the candidate as candidate-only unless a separately governed authority establishes a different state.

How can I verify that this candidate and its evidence are the right ones?

Start with the approved authority boundary: revision 2026-08-08, disclosure public-safe, and exactly these three source IDs: source.naming-decision, source.documentation-boundary, and source.platform-delivery-contract. Confirm that this page's metadata lists those same three IDs and no others. For each ID, find the matching public-safe record in the source registry and check its authority class, locator, revision, digest, and disclosure. Then check that the page identity, path, title, visibility, audiences, reading modes, claim references, and source references agree with the registered page. Evidence is adequate only for the documented candidate and the bounded checks that were actually performed. A missing, stale, conflicting, unsupported, or non-public-safe record is an unresolved gap; it is not evidence to fill in from assumption.

What should I do after that verification?

Choose one bounded documentation use case and write down the claims and evidence needed to assess it. Compare those needs with the approved source records and candidate facts, and record every missing, stale, conflicting, or unsupported fact as an unresolved gap. Then choose a scoped, reversible fit conversation or a follow-up with the named authority for the missing decision. Keep the candidate parked throughout. This guidance does not establish general availability or authorize a customer outcome, technical performance, approval, promotion, publication, scheduling, rollback, pointer creation, or a live-directory write.

Reader acceptance checks

1. AC-1 — Validation flow: The reader can explain the path from sealed authority, through the three approved public-safe source records and synchronized page metadata, to deterministic product evidence, while keeping that evidence separate from platform attestations and publication decisions.
2. AC-2 — Candidate-only boundary: The reader can state that constrained delivery stops at a parked candidate and does not become approval, promotion, publication, scheduling, rollback, a release pointer, or a live directory merely because the page or evidence was inspected.
3. AC-3 — Next adoption action: The reader can select one bounded use case, record unsupported or unresolved facts as gaps, and choose a scoped, reversible fit conversation or authority follow-up while leaving the candidate parked and making no customer-outcome claim.