Required route fields as labelled record lines

Type: reference/types/design-proposal.md

Archived (see archive README). Adopted in narrowed form by ADR 100. The shared record contract and member validator carry the live requirement. The dated observations below remain historical evidence.

Current state (as of 2026-09-29)

The original proposal recorded one retained PageIndex set on main, AAS-2026-09-28-pageindex-01. All four runtime route records carried the Later read-back: label; none of the seven memory route records used it. These were different authoring contracts, so the observation was not an omission rate. Memory record RTE-5 answered the question with “Later read-back is RTE-8 and RTE-9” without the colon label.

Runtime paragraphs combined multiple fields and varied labels such as Expiry, Invalidation, and Invalidation/expiry. The observation showed that exact-label counts would conflate a formatting difference with missing analysis unless answers were inspected separately.

The batch-01 rerun trace audit dated 2026-09-28 reported a Basic Memory specialist output that passed validation, then needed two correction turns for missing read-back fields, heterogeneous objects and irregular headings and IDs. The specialist had not opened the runtime type holding the full route-field requirements. That batch was not on main at the proposal's date.

Retained boundary

These are the observations reported in the proposal at that time. They do not measure the reorganized shared contract or the adopted field validator. The original analysis sets are not migrated or re-certified. Current syntax, consumer delivery, alternatives, rejected migration and the decision against an additional adequacy assay are recorded in ADR 100. There is no remaining implementation commission in this archive entry.