Project Proposal Standard

Purpose and applicability

A feature list can grow indefinitely without saying what a complete project is. PPS freezes intent, scope and testable success or failure before broad implementation.

New projects, revived projects and existing work whose intent has drifted. Identify personal, shared or adoptable responsibility posture.

How it works

Describe the problem and mission, then boundaries, personas, constraints, risks and mitigation. Choose a delivery standard by deliverable. Assign readiness and map it to WGS lifecycle; unknown delivery ownership keeps broad implementation unready.

Outputs are the proposal, readiness decision, version milestone shape, governing-standard mapping and linked entity manifest/read map. A proposal is clarity evidence, not an implemented product.

In practice

A read-only manifest audit CLI is a bounded proposal: missing references must be reported, and mutation is a failure. The record annotates why CTS owns the command contract.

Problem: missing required suite fields and broken references are easy to miss.
Mission: report metadata gaps without changing files.
In scope: required sections; artifact references; human and JSON output.
Out of scope: edits, moves, domain conformance certification.
Success: missing fields reported; documented exit codes; JSON stdout stays clean.
Failure: audit mutates files or silently ignores missing artifacts.
Risk: users confuse scaffold checks with full compliance.
Mitigation: state the limited scope in help and result notes.
Delivery: CTS (command consumed by operator/script).
Readiness: draft until full proposal and contract are reviewed.

Adopt one part

Start with a bounded surface or record. Complete the relevant adopter checks before extending the claim.

1. Write a one-paragraph mission and one explicit out-of-scope boundary.
2. Define observable success and failure, accepted risks, responsibility posture and first-version completion.
3. Choose the delivery standard and reconcile proposal readiness with the entity lifecycle before broad implementation.

Sources and limits

The CLI proposal is adapted from a canonical example and has no execution result. “Ready” must be supported by the complete proposal; it is not inferred from this abbreviated slice.

These are reviewed public explanations, not the normative specifications. Suite references are relative to the canonical collection; site/ references identify committed website sources and webserver/ references identify serving configuration. Illustrative examples demonstrate record shape; they do not establish compliance. Suite checks and adopter validation are separate.

• PPS/PPS.manifest.toml
• PPS/Adoption-Guide.md
• PPS/Validation-Checklist.md
• PPS/Project Proposal Standard.md
• PPS/examples/Example-CLI-Project-Proposal.md
• PPS/Delivery-Standard-Mapping.md