store.sgit.ai / The dev packs
The dev packs
The instruction was to publish these documents on the site. The same document that gave the instruction named five checks that run first, called every one of them "a real edit or a real hold", and recorded that who runs them is not decided. So this area exists, its manifest is published, and its documents are not. Two of the five checks are measurable and are measured below: 11 of the 19 documents would break a hard rule on contact with this site.
What is published here today
The manifest, and nothing else. Every document, its kind, its size and its sha256. That is enough for somebody holding the pack to check their copy against this page, and not enough to read a word of it here.
That is deliberate, and it is the same discipline the pack asks of everything else: checkable by a reader who does not trust the page. A documents area that published its own text but not its own hashes would be arguing against the product it sits beside.
| # | Kind | Subject | Bytes | sha256 | What holds it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
00 | pack file | The domain question, the boundaries, and what may not be invented | 4,184 | 893d49b1d87a7d58 | hard rule 1 ×1 |
01 | pack file | The pages, the offers, the codes, and the two payment rails | 7,629 | 4fb4083e2d58ac9c | hard rule 1 ×1 |
02 | pack file | Fifteen rules that constrain the page, each with a reason | 5,984 | 990171d4aaee2bed | hard rule 1 ×1 |
03 | pack file | Every naming ruling in force, and the one collision that is open | 5,466 | 0c85b33c1cf82f56 | hard rule 1 ×2 check 5 ×5 |
04 | pack file | The instruction to publish this area, and the five checks first | 6,955 | dc7e16b89c3b0378 | check 5 ×1 |
1 | brief | The payment rail, the four tiers and the deadline | 27,235 | 4b50983481e40ae4 | hard rule 1 ×8 |
2 | brief | The second rail, the registration path, and the correction | 28,749 | a74d9176577f9ff2 | nothing a script can see |
3 | brief | What is actually sold, and why a store does not contradict the published argument | 15,689 | 1b946cdcea89b8a0 | nothing a script can see |
4 | brief | Every name, every site, every domain, and the open collision | 19,604 | 40731e79e27e036e | hard rule 1 ×7 check 5 ×8 |
5 | brief | The catalogue, and the eight further offers | 16,191 | e0d67b54b5cd3e79 | nothing a script can see |
6 | brief | What is free and what is paid, on two orthogonal axes | 23,702 | 4a29aa0aad48bec1 | nothing a script can see |
7 | brief | The naming resolution and the licence matrix | 26,817 | d20ff06a8e0a1f35 | hard rule 1 ×6 |
8 | brief | The product, the competitors and the brand split | 23,894 | 035dc3363a267139 | hard rule 1 ×1 |
9 | brief | The three audiences, and the conflict that two industries regulated | 24,933 | 9c5becb288209074 | nothing a script can see |
10 | brief | Who signs, and why a named opinion is a legal act | 24,112 | 0d951d6535e3dc40 | hard rule 1 ×5 |
11 | brief | What must be disclosed on the page, and why triage is sold rather than raw findings | 17,953 | e3db0211508e68ca | nothing a script can see |
12 | brief | The name to lead with | 28,764 | 0fc75b8e4a5fb71c | hard rule 1 ×22 check 5 ×4 |
13 | brief | The sentence, the three terms ruled out, and the competitive scan | 41,025 | 9ad8a0af786ae154 | nothing a script can see |
14 | brief | The printed surfaces, the merchandise line and the question mechanic | 44,096 | 2dd04c35f28646ff | hard rule 1 ×4 |
The subjects are ours, written for this table. The documents' own titles are held with the documents: one of them carries, in its title, the word hard rule 1 bars from every page of this site. The full manifest is served as pack.json. The pack as delivered is 152,404 bytes, sha256 c162e944a53aff6db37c6de8.
Why nothing is published yet
Publishing is not a formatting change. The five checks below are quoted from the instruction itself, and each of them is a real edit or a real hold.
| # | The check | Who can run it | State |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Audit every named third party for adjectives Hard rule 8, the ruling of 20 August: publish the record, never the verdict. These were written for an internal reader, and internal briefs are blunt. | A person reading for tone. A script cannot do this one. | not run |
| 2 | Mark each document as model generated, on its face Hard rule 5. The transparency article has applied since 2 August 2026 and reaches a third-country party whose output is used in the Union. The disclosure belongs on the document, not only in a site footer. | Mechanical, once the documents are cleared to publish. | not run |
| 3 | Verify or remove every unverified claim that names a company A note saying unverified is honest inside a working document and a liability on a public page beside a company's name. | A person, with the sources open. | not run |
| 4 | Re-read the two documents with unresolved legal exposure The parody research in the printed-surfaces brief, and any passage describing what a competitor's security does or does not do — marketing copy read on one day, not measurements. | A person, and probably not only a person here. | not run |
| 5 | Hold anything touching the open naming collision Two phrases in this vocabulary mean opposite things and both are in use. Ruled on 8 September to block any public page until the collision is closed, and a published dev pack is a public page. | Measured below: 4 documents carry it. Closing the collision is a ruling, not an edit. | measured, not resolved |
Two of the five can be measured by a script, and the script has run:
- Hard rule 1 — the word that may never appear anywhere on a site carrying prices — appears in 11 of the 19 documents, including in the title of one of them. The rule's stated reason is that a positioning phrase is a claim but a priced checkout is an offer, and an offer is what the regulated perimeter is about. There is no page of this site where the word is safe, and a published document is a page.
- Check 5 — the open naming collision, ruled on 8 September to block any public page — appears in 4 of the 19.
The other three need a person. Auditing every named third party for adjectives is the check most likely to fail, because these were written for an internal reader and internal briefs are blunt — and no script reads for tone. Verifying or cutting every unverified claim that names a company needs the sources open. Re-reading the two documents with unresolved legal exposure needs somebody who is not only a builder.
What is not being asked for here
Not permission to soften them. The gaps in these documents are the point. A document that says a pipeline does not exist, or that an application built in August cannot be located, is doing exactly what the method is for, and a dev packs area whose uncertainty has been edited out is a marketing page wearing a lab coat. Nothing in the manifest above has been rewritten and nothing will be.
What is being asked for is two rulings and three reads. The word: does hard rule 1 reach a republished working document, or only original copy? The collision: close it, or hold the four documents that carry it. Then the three checks a person has to run.
Until those happen, this page is what the area is.
The structure it will open into
The shape is already specified and the build already follows half of it: one index, one folder per pack, a pack.json manifest with hashes, and compiled files rather than one file per record — because the published performance cliffs punish thousands of small objects, and a cold open of 2,375 objects was measured at over three minutes.
/dev-packs/
index.html this page — the list of packs, with date, count and state
pack.json the manifest, machine-readable ← published today
llms.txt per the estate convention
llms-full.txt the quotation set, the gaps, the open questions
/store/ this pack — held
Two things are already decided and neither is a formatting question. A published pack is frozen, not maintained: a dated document with hashes is a promise about a moment, and a pack that gets quietly updated breaks that promise — so new versions are added beside, never over. And whether packs from other days and other subjects follow this one is a separate decision with a much larger surface, not an extension of this instruction.
One thing this area is not sure about
Whether it belongs on this site at all. The instruction said "the site", and this pack was written for this one. The reasonable alternative is that a dev packs area belongs on the platform domain and indexes packs for every site, with each pack linked from the site it concerns — which fits the convention that every site in the network is named for an argument, and a documents index is not an argument.
It is built here, every internal link is relative, and the folder is self-contained so it can be moved without rewriting it. Same as the host question, and for the same reason. read, not run 10 Sep 2026
The six offers → Every claim on this site, with its state → What we do not say →