Problem
docs/product-assessment.md's "3. Adoption Potential" section has a dated entry out of chronological order. The ### 2026-07-30 / Single-repository positioning entry (lines 204-212) sits before ### 2026-06-17 Product Review Delta (line 213), ### 2026-06-21 / 1.1.0 Product Review Delta (line 248), and the other June/early-July entries -- every other dated entry in this append-only assessment log is in strict ascending order; this one alone is out of sequence.
git log -p -S"Single-repository positioning" shows it was inserted by commit bed7f66 (2026-07-31, PR #1834) directly after the section's intro paragraph rather than appended in date order.
This is a different defect from the one #2038 already fixed (which was about relicense content getting edited into an old dated section rather than appended as a new one) -- that fix did not touch this pre-existing ordering problem, which predates it and is still present.
Why this matters
This document's whole value as an assessment log depends on entries being readable in the order events actually happened. An out-of-order entry makes the surrounding narrative confusing (a reader hits a 2026-07-30 entry, then several entries dated in June, and has to mentally re-sort).
Proposed change
Move the ### 2026-07-30 / Single-repository positioning entry to its correct chronological position within "3. Adoption Potential" (after all June and earlier-July entries, before any later entries).
Acceptance criteria
Problem
docs/product-assessment.md's "3. Adoption Potential" section has a dated entry out of chronological order. The
### 2026-07-30 / Single-repository positioningentry (lines 204-212) sits before### 2026-06-17 Product Review Delta(line 213),### 2026-06-21 / 1.1.0 Product Review Delta(line 248), and the other June/early-July entries -- every other dated entry in this append-only assessment log is in strict ascending order; this one alone is out of sequence.git log -p -S"Single-repository positioning"shows it was inserted by commitbed7f66(2026-07-31, PR #1834) directly after the section's intro paragraph rather than appended in date order.This is a different defect from the one #2038 already fixed (which was about relicense content getting edited into an old dated section rather than appended as a new one) -- that fix did not touch this pre-existing ordering problem, which predates it and is still present.
Why this matters
This document's whole value as an assessment log depends on entries being readable in the order events actually happened. An out-of-order entry makes the surrounding narrative confusing (a reader hits a 2026-07-30 entry, then several entries dated in June, and has to mentally re-sort).
Proposed change
Move the
### 2026-07-30 / Single-repository positioningentry to its correct chronological position within "3. Adoption Potential" (after all June and earlier-July entries, before any later entries).Acceptance criteria