VER 1.1 — draftdraft
§17 Open questions blocking ratification
ADR-0006 — whether the redaction commitment is mandatory — is closed (§5). It was the only open decision on the VER standards track. What remains blocking is not decisions but deliverables and evidence, plus two genuine votes.
| # | Question | Gate |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Does the VER Registry exist, governed as §2.2 requires, with a snapshot mechanism conformance can bind to? | Deliverable — BLOCKING for §2.3 |
| 2 | Does the decoder implementation profile and reference corpus exist (E12, §8.3)? | Deliverable — BLOCKING for any cross-producer pixel_hash claim |
| 3 | Are the reference-set manifests published for every space the project ships, now that set_manifest_sha256 is REQUIRED? | Deliverable — BLOCKING for §8.2 |
| 4 | Does the revised VER-F lexicon exist, implementing §14.1–§14.8? | Deliverable — BLOCKING for every §14 MUST |
| 5 | Do 1.1 profile-validator rules and conformance fixtures exist, including §3.5's eight lineage fixtures and negative fixtures for every new conditional? | Deliverable — BLOCKING |
| 6 | Have at least two independent implementations produced and consumed 1.1 Records interoperably? | Evidence — BLOCKING (VERSIONING.md §3.4) |
| 7 | Are §7's size numbers supported by a measured corpus? | Evidence |
| 8 | Does §11.1's per-kind preprocessing requirement move from VER405's warning into the schema? | Ratification vote |
| 9 | Does 1.1 add an explicit scrubbed-segment carriage, so a redacting Producer can preserve a segment with the sensitive value removed instead of omitting it (§5.2, E15)? | Ratification vote |
The full checklist, with every deliverable and its state, is in RELEASE.md.