Loud staging

The rule. Unwired core code is permissible only while it announces itself at every point of contact: a doc comment naming the wiring intent, a surface error stating the capability is not wired at this stage, and a brief or roadmap row scheduling it. Silent unwired code is dead scaffolding regardless of its quality.

Why. This is the boundary "wired or it isn't done" actually needs. Staging is sometimes correct — a contract worth landing a phase before its publish path — and the difference between staging and scaffolding is whether the code can be trusted to explain its own status. The 2026-07-08 review drew the line empirically: the staged launch-ship core was downgraded by adversarial verifiers precisely because it discloses loudly (doc comment, CLI refusal message, scheduled intents), while a silently unreached status function in the same review stayed a Major finding.

Bounds.

• Disclosure has three mandatory sites: the code (doc comment naming the intent), the surface (an explicit not-wired refusal, never a stub that half-works), and the record (the intent that will wire it).
• Loudness expires: when the named intent ships or is superseded, the staged code is wired or removed in that change. Disclosure is a lease, not a licence.

Promotion. No mechanical check distinguishes announced staging from silent scaffolding yet; a coverage-plus-caller audit wired into the record would promote this.