prometeu-studio/docs/pbs/agendas/13.1. Conformance Workshop 1 - Conformance Claim Levels.md

PBS Conformance Workshop 1

Status: Active

Purpose

Run the first focused discussion for 13. Conformance Test Specification.md on conformance claims:

• whether PBS has one conformance level or multiple claim tiers,
• what each claim means,
• and how partial implementations must describe themselves.

Why This Slice First

This slice should come first because every later conformance workshop depends on knowing what kind of claim the tests are intended to validate.

Proposed Meeting Order

1. Reconfirm the current source-level conformance baseline.
2. Decide whether claim levels exist.
3. Decide minimum requirements for each allowed claim.
4. Decide naming restrictions for partial implementations.
5. Record oracle and fixture consequences for later workshops.

Decisions To Produce

1. One-level versus staged conformance model.
2. Minimum obligations per conformance claim.
3. Naming policy for partial implementations.
4. The dependency from conformance claims into compatibility policy.

Candidate Decisions

1. Allow Staged Claims

Candidate direction:

• permit staged claims such as: frontend conformance, source-runtime conformance, and full toolchain conformance.

Rationale:

• This lets the project evolve honestly without pretending an unfinished backend is complete.

Alternative to discuss:

• keep only one conformance level to avoid user confusion.

2. Each Claim Must Name What It Does Not Cover

Candidate direction:

• every partial claim must explicitly state excluded domains such as artifact emission, loader interaction, or verifier behavior.

Rationale:

• This prevents marketing-language ambiguity.

3. Full PBS v1 Claim Requires The Whole Active Spec Set

Candidate direction:

• only the full claim may say “PBS v1 conforming” without qualifier,
• staged claims must remain explicitly qualified.

Rationale:

• This protects the meaning of the top-level claim.

Questions To Resolve In The Room

1. Are multiple conformance levels helpful or too confusing?
2. What exact names should staged claims use?
3. Can a parser-plus-binder implementation claim anything beyond “frontend”?
4. Must runtime execution without artifact emission count as a distinct level?
5. How does this interact with 17 compatibility labels?

Expected Outputs

1. a decision record for claim levels,
2. a claim taxonomy draft for 13,
3. and follow-up requirements for 17.

Explicit Deferrals For Workshop 2

• diagnostic oracle granularity,
• source-level suite structure,
• and artifact-level tests.

Inputs

• docs/pbs/specs/13. Conformance Test Specification.md
• docs/pbs/specs/17. Compatibility and Evolution Policy.md
• docs/pbs/agendas/13. Conformance Test Agenda.md
• docs/pbs/agendas/17. Compatibility and Evolution Policy Agenda.md