A standardised README split (contributor page on the code host, product story on a rendered site) for every managed repo was proposed and adversarially reviewed the same day: four fatal hits against the imposed-standard framing, reframed to offered-never-imposed — a scaffold-time contributor-README template proposed as a human-adopted diff, structure held per-repo via registered positioning.json surfaces, and no convention language until abcd's own split has shipped and a second managed repo has adopted it (itd-140 rule 3). The review is the dated 2026-08-22 research note; graduation takes the full idea-admission gauntlet with abcd's shipped instance as first evidence

A standardised README split (contributor page on the code host, product story on a rendered site) for every managed repo was proposed and adversarially reviewed the same day: four fatal hits against the imposed-standard framing, reframed to offered-never-imposed — a scaffold-time contributor-README template proposed as a human-adopted diff, structure held per-repo via registered positioning.json surfaces, and no convention language until abcd's own split has shipped and a second managed repo has adopted it (itd-140 rule 3). The review is the dated 2026-08-22 research note; graduation takes the full idea-admission gauntlet with abcd's shipped instance as first evidence

Remedy grounds (2026-09-29)

• GitHub's own guidance keeps a README to what the project does, why it is useful, how to start, where to get help and who maintains it, with longer documentation elsewhere (https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-readmes, consulted 2026-09-29), so the contributor half of the split is the conventional shape and the template can stay small; itd-140 rule 3 still withholds convention language until a second repository adopts it.
• Rejected: imposing the split on every managed repository, which the 2026-08-22 adversarial review struck.