docs(distribution): document copy-adoption and cross-doc reconciliation governance

[kyle-sexton]

Summary

Closes decisions #27, #63, and #65 from the Decisions Log (evidence/rationale: https://claude.ai/code/artifact/3160ae0e-c02f-4619-8de3-60d73faa1100).

#63 metadata-standards-copy-vs-cite-doctrine

Decision: keep the "copy" adoption path, require back-link + drift-check.

Adds distribution/governance-process.md. conventions/README.md already documents two adoption paths for reasoning-only prose — copy into the consumer's tree, or point at this repo. The copy path stays available (prose has no runtime coupling to enforce reconciliation the way sync-manifest.yml does), but a copy now carries two mandatory requirements:

• Back-link — every copied file cites its exact canonical source (repo + path, inline header where the format allows it), using the same stable-anchor citation discipline reference-dont-duplicate.md already prescribes for the "Expose" file role.
• Drift-check — the adopting repo owns a periodic diff of its copy against the current canonical source, with a named owner and trigger, mirroring the recheck-trigger discipline documentation-and-citations.md already requires for time-bound external claims.

The doc is explicit that this is distinct from a managed sync-manifest.yml component, which already reconciles automatically and deliberately carries no downstream receipt — the back-link/drift-check burden applies only where nothing else keeps a copy current.

#65 naming-cross-doc-reconciliation-process-ownership

Decision: establish a standing cross-reference review step for normative-doc changes.

Same doc adds the standing process step: before a change to a normative doc (naming.md, process/issue-tracker.md, review/code-quality.md, and any other file in the catalog stating a rule another doc cites or assumes) merges, a cross-reference check confirms no other doc now contradicts it.

Ownership is named explicitly rather than left implicit: required_approving_review_count stays at 0 org-wide (decision #11, single-maintainer), so there is no independent blocking reviewer to gate this. The step is documented as a self-review checklist item the author performs before merge, with a documented future automation path — extending the periodic cross-plugin-source consistency check (decision #37, for claude-code-plugins) to this repo's own normative docs once that check exists, so the control stops depending solely on author diligence.

conventions/README.md gets a new "Changing a normative file" pointer to this requirement; distribution/README.md gets a pointer alongside its existing THREAT-MODEL.md reference.

#27 tooling-gov-conventions-graduate-to-enforced

Decision: graduate mechanically-checkable rules into sync-manifest-tracked components.

Reviewed every file under conventions/ against enforceability-tiers.md's deterministic/detect-then-judge/reasoning-only split. Finding: no ungraduated deterministic rule exists to graduate. Every deterministic (mechanically-checkable) rule already points to its owning component instead of restating it:

Convention area	Deterministic rule	Owning component	Tracked in sync-manifest.yml?
Secrets (review/security.md)	no secrets in source	gitleaks	yes
Comments (review/code-quality.md)	debt markers / tracker provenance	comment-hygiene	yes (comment-hygiene-action)
Citations (documentation-and-citations.md)	cited URL resolves	link check	yes (lychee)
TypeScript/JS (review/overlays/typescript.md)	lint/format/import order, type correctness	biome, tsconfig	no — deliberately native-package (extends) adoption per distribution/README.md's ownership model, not exact materialization
Python (review/overlays/python.md)	lint/format, type correctness	ruff, pyright	yes
.NET (review/overlays/dotnet.md)	analyzers, code style, banned symbols	dotnet-analysis	yes
Container build (container-supply-chain.md)	Docker Build checks, OSV scans	(none yet)	no — the convention itself explicitly defers this pending live-consumer admission evidence per docs/component-lifecycle.md; graduating it without that evidence would violate the same lifecycle contract
PR titles (review/code-quality.md)	Conventional Commits format	(ci-workflows pr-title.yml)	out of this repo's materialization surface — owned by ci-workflows, per README.md's ownership boundaries
Naming (naming.md), label/issue-tracker usage (process/issue-tracker.md), duplication (reference-dont-duplicate.md)	—	—	self-declared reasoning-only; no deterministic subset exists to graduate

No sync-manifest.yml change is included. The one adjacent orphan noticed in passing — components/lefthook-typescript exists, is fully built, but is not registered in sync-manifest.yml for any target — is tooling infrastructure, not a conventions/ rule, and assigning it to a target's managed: list is a separate adoption decision requiring its own admission evidence; flagging it here for a follow-up rather than folding it into this PR.

Test plan

• npx markdownlint-cli2 — 0 errors across the full repo (71 files, including the new/changed docs)
• lychee — 21/21 links OK on the changed files (0 errors)
• typos — clean on the changed files
• lefthook pre-commit (typos, editorconfig, gitleaks, markdownlint) — all passed at commit time
• Maintainer confirms the feat: add conventions/ prose (engineering conventions + review criteria) #27 classification table before merge — no code/config changed, so this PR is prose-only and carries no behavioral risk

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[claude]

Claude finished @kyle-sexton's task in 1s —— View job

---

I'll analyze this and get back to you.

[claude]

Claude finished @kyle-sexton's task in 2s —— View job

---

I'll analyze this and get back to you.