canon(constraint): model disambiguation — bare 'model' is the LLM (DRAFT — do not merge)

[git-repo-auth]

DRAFT — captain's pen. DO NOT MERGE until you review the exact text (authorial voice).

Adds one tier-1 canon document: canon/constraints/model-disambiguation.md, mirroring the existing harness-disambiguation precedent.

The problem

"model" carries four distinct senses side by side in canon. Two collide in a single title line: The Flight Deck Model — How a Model Boards This System. And flight-deck-model (architecture sense) sits in the same canon/bootstrap/ directory as model-operating-contract (AI sense).

The ruling this proposes

One convention + one targeted rename:

1. Bare, unqualified "model" = the AI/LLM. Keeps the word — most entrenched (model_id, model provenance D0002, model-operating-contract), matches industry.
2. Every other sense must always carry a qualifier ("operating model", "flight deck model", "mental model").
3. The ratified data/design sense leaves the word entirely → "design"/"schema" — collides most directly in bare form ("a ratified model") and is least entrenched.

Sense inventory (cited)

Sense	Verdict	Example
AI / LLM	keep bare	model_id; "comparison between AI models" (D0002); "How a Model Boards"
ratified data/design	rename → design/schema	"rules a data/design model … reconciled to that model" (PR #288); "Canon Storage Model"
operating / architecture	keep, compounded	"Two-Loop Operating Model" (PR #291); "Flight Deck Model"
mental / conceptual	keep, compounded	"one-page mental model"; "The Intern — A Mental Model"

Apply-scope / blast radius

Nothing already merged changes. Recommended package: rename PR #288 (ratified-model-… → ratified-design-…, unmerged ≈ 0 cost) + update #291 cross-ref + this new doc + one odd/terminology row. model_id/D0002/models-do-not-mutate-canon/model-operating-contract untouched. Ruling now, while #288/#291 are drafts, makes the rename nearly free.

oddkit_challenge

Ran in exploration mode — no blocking tensions. Alternatives (rename sense 1; rename sense 3; glossary-only; do-nothing) considered and rejected in the doc's Confidence/Falsifiability + decision brief. Residuals noted honestly (model-operating-contract adjacency; design-vs-schema-vs-data-model nuance; cross-repo ARS scope deferred).

Frontmatter: stability: draft, status: draft — awaiting captain ratification. Sourced from canon + PRs #288/#291 read live; no sandbox-only inputs.

[github-actions]

Canon Quality — Frontmatter Schema ✅

All 49 file(s) in writings/ conform to klappy://canon/meta/frontmatter-schema.

_{Validator: scripts/validate-frontmatter.py · Canon: klappy://canon/constraints/frontmatter-validation-before-merge · Run: #366}

[github-actions]

Canon Quality — oddkit_audit ✅

No dead klappy:// references or legacy link patterns found in writings/. 51 files scanned.

_{Spec: klappy://docs/oddkit/specs/oddkit-audit · Workflow: .github/workflows/canon-quality.yml · Run: #366}

[github-actions]

Canon Quality — Homepage Surfacing ✅

49 essay(s) scanned. Soft report — never blocks; the hard field gate is the Frontmatter Schema job.

All published essays resolve to the homepage feed.

_{Report: scripts/surfacing-report.py · Canon: klappy://canon/constraints/frontmatter-validation-before-merge}

[github-actions]

Canon Quality — P0010 Retrieval-Readiness ⚠️

Soft report for klappy://canon/constraints/retrieval-disclosure-contract. 700 files scanned. Never blocks — informational until the corpus is ready to enforce.

• Blocking-class findings: 15 (structural fields the contract would filter on)
• Warnings: 0 (kind resolves to unknown)
• Informational: 13 (exempt templates/archive/drafts)

Kind distribution: {'essays': 51, 'canon': 241, 'apocrypha': 38, 'docs': 304, 'journals': 60, 'unknown': 6}
Kind source: {'path': 565, 'frontmatter': 129, 'none': 6} (frontmatter-primary, path-secondary)
Default-include visibility: 596 visible, 104 hidden (journals/apocrypha/unknown)

By rule: {'audience-invalid': 2, 'exposure-missing': 5, 'tier-missing': 5, 'tier-invalid': 7, 'fm-missing': 3, 'kind-unresolvable': 6}

These are not schema violations (see the Frontmatter Schema job for those on writings/). They are corpus-readiness signals for the retrieval contract: invalid/missing audience, exposure, tier, and docs whose kind cannot be resolved. Fix in a corpus-cleanup PR before the contract flips to enforcing. See the retrieval-readiness-findings artifact for the full list.

_{Validator: scripts/audit-retrieval-readiness.py · Constraint: klappy://canon/constraints/retrieval-disclosure-contract · Run: #366}