Publication Reader Journey

A qualified prospective or current Governed Execution Engine customer begins at the public engine overview, names one bounded documentation use case, and uses this page to find the capability being evaluated: a traceable, public-safe way to read governed documentation evidence. This is a reader route for fit evaluation, not a performance, compliance, availability, or customer-outcome promise. The reader keeps unsupported, stale, or conflicting facts visible while deciding whether the use case merits a scoped adoption conversation.

Evidence and Authority

Start with the sealed sources/authority.json. Its authority revision and source_files identify source.naming-decision, source.documentation-boundary, and source.platform-delivery-contract. Follow those IDs in the registries/sources.json source registry and check each recorded locator, revision, digest, and public-safe disclosure. The approved-source boundary says that a missing or stale authority reference blocks the governed delivery; it does not permit the reader to fill a gap with plausible prose. The reader may record a product conclusion about the wording and evidence, while platform-owned validator, identity, route, approval, and activation attestations remain outside this page.

The publication boundary is described by the product release contract (docs/release-contract.md): a candidate is a local, reversible record for review, not proof that a live transition happened. A customer may inspect a candidate's evidence and readiness facts, but must not interpret that inspection as approval, promotion, publication, scheduling, rollback, creation or change of a release pointer, a live release, or a live directory. If the available authority does not establish one of those outcomes, the correct reader result is an explicit unresolved gap.

For version and rollback interpretation, compare the immutable candidate record's previous-version identity, rollback-target identity, rollback availability, and any release-blocking fact. A missing, stale, or conflicting fact remains unresolved; do not infer a previous release, a rollback target, or rollback authority from candidate evidence. The candidate record is evidence to inspect, not a platform attestation.

To reproduce the bounded evidence trail, follow the registered sources and compare build/index.json with the deterministic content-validation, projection, and smoke evidence named for the candidate. Those checks support a product conclusion about the documented evidence; they do not create a release pointer, promote a candidate, publish content, schedule or roll back a release, or write a live directory.

Next Adoption Decision

After completing the source trace and candidate-boundary check, the next adoption decision is whether one named, bounded documentation use case merits a scoped evaluation conversation. Compare the use case's required claims and evidence with the sealed source records, note every missing, stale, or conflicting fact, and decide whether the evidence is sufficient to continue fit review. A reversible next step is to refine the use-case question or ask the responsible authority to resolve a documented gap. It is not to treat a candidate as a live release, create a publication pointer, or perform any promotion, publication, scheduling, rollback, or live-directory write. This journey records customer-fit evidence only and leaves platform attestations to the platform-owned gate.