oaknational · jimCresswell · Jun 18, 2026 · Jun 18, 2026
diff --git a/.agent/memory/active/napkin.md b/.agent/memory/active/napkin.md
@@ -35,6 +35,15 @@
 - The harness auto-mode classifier **blocks `gh workflow run Release -f
   increment=...`** — agent-forced release version. Rely on the computed increment
   from a real merge.
+- **Consolidation must reach the STRATEGIC index, not just continuity/threads.**
+  A deep `consolidate-docs` pass refreshed continuity, thread records, and the
+  collection README but left `high-level-plan.md` + `roadmap.md` at a mid-program
+  snapshot — the top-level strategic surfaces are easy to forget. Add them to the
+  consolidation sweep. (Caught when the owner asked for a strategic retrospective.)
+- **The sharp strategic question is proportionality, not more rigor.** For a
+  "lightweight template foundation", the VISION's clone/rename/adapt promise is
+  validated by construction, not by a real adoption — so the next high-value move
+  is a first-adoption dry-run (`docs/first-adoption-dry-run.md`), not more gates.
 
 ## Session: 2026-06-18 (final) — program COMPLETE: F6 + Tier 3 + Tier 2 + deps + v0.3.0
 

diff --git a/.agent/memory/operational/repo-continuity.md b/.agent/memory/operational/repo-continuity.md
@@ -176,4 +176,12 @@ over-block). Full state in the
   release-model experience note. Incoming Practice boxes empty (no-op). Napkin 294 lines —
   under the rotation threshold, left in place; `distilled.md` unchanged
   (durable lessons already homed in docs).
+- 2026-06-18 (final, strategic tier): refreshed the **strategic index** —
+  `high-level-plan.md` (strand table + next intentions) and `roadmap.md` had
+  stayed at a mid-program snapshot that the previous consolidation pass missed
+  (it reached continuity/threads/collection-README but not the top-level index).
+  Both now reflect program completion + the continuous-release model, and reframe
+  the next move as **proving the clone/rename/adapt promise** (new
+  `docs/first-adoption-dry-run.md`) and **watching proportionality**. Also fixed a
+  stale "release-PR automation" line in `docs/using-this-template.md`.
 - The earlier 2026-04-23 source-Practice transfer remains the closed baseline.
diff --git a/.agent/plans/high-level-plan.md b/.agent/plans/high-level-plan.md
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 plan_id: high-level-plan
 type: strategic-index
 status: active
-last_updated: 2026-06-17
+last_updated: 2026-06-18
 ---
 
 # High-Level Plan
@@ -15,21 +15,29 @@ Execution detail belongs in collection roadmaps and active plans.
 
 | Strand | Goal | Current state |
 | --- | --- | --- |
-| Agentic engineering | Keep the Practice, planning, review, and adapter estate coherent | Baseline landed; reviewer agents registered with a Pythonicity lens; maintain and refine |
-| Runtime infrastructure | Keep validation, audits, reports, and quality gates truthful | CI live; template-fitness F1/F2/F4 landed (F3/F8 remain); quality-gate-surface-expansion in progress (Markdown gate landed; gitleaks/pip-audit/codespell/supply-chain queued) |
-| Demo application | Keep `activity-report` useful without redefining repo identity | Baseline landed; intentionally bounded |
+| Agentic engineering | Keep the Practice, planning, review, and adapter estate coherent | Mature; reviewer agents + the Practice/memory/continuity estate carried a multi-session, multi-PR program; the `agent_hooks` safety rail was hardened (F6). Maintain and refine. |
+| Runtime infrastructure | Keep validation, audits, reports, and quality gates truthful | The "highest proportionate bar" program is **complete**: full `check-ci` gate suite + gitleaks/SonarCloud/CodeQL, a **self-guarding `repo_audit`** (pins the gates' own config), supply-chain SHA-pinning, branch coverage, and **continuous release on merge (PR-merge-only)** via the release bot. Required status checks + `v*` tag protection enforced. **Tier 4 deliberately deferred.** |
+| Demo application | Keep `activity-report` useful without redefining repo identity | Bounded by design; now WCAG 2.2 AA accessible and exercised by Hypothesis property tests + the wheel smoke. |
 
 ## Immediate next intentions
 
-1. Finish the template-fitness remediation: F3 coverage honesty and F8 chart
-   accessibility (F4 CI is landed). See
-   [runtime-infrastructure/current/template-fitness-remediation.md](runtime-infrastructure/current/template-fitness-remediation.md).
-2. Continue the quality-gate-surface-expansion: gitleaks, pip-audit, codespell,
-   supply-chain config. See
-   [runtime-infrastructure/current/quality-gate-surface-expansion.md](runtime-infrastructure/current/quality-gate-surface-expansion.md).
-3. Preserve coherence across the Practice surfaces as the template evolves.
-4. Keep the runtime and repo-audit foundations truthful.
-5. Resist demo-application sprawl while keeping the seeded example executable.
+1. **Prove the core VISION promise.** The clone/rename/adapt outcome is validated
+   by construction (rename guide + `repo_audit`-as-checklist), not yet by a real
+   adoption. Run the
+   [first-adoption dry-run](../../docs/first-adoption-dry-run.md), fork → rename →
+   adapt, and feed the friction back into the template.
+2. **Watch proportionality.** The bar is the *highest **proportionate*** one — a
+   lightweight template foundation, not a feature product. Resist adding rigor
+   that raises adopter cognitive load without proportionate value; Tier 4 stays
+   deferred unless explicitly requested.
+3. **Owner action:** enable the GitHub Code Quality org preview (the last
+   governance setting). See
+   [docs/repository-governance.md](../../docs/repository-governance.md).
+4. **Deferred residuals when warranted:** the `agent_hooks` glued-operator /
+   bare-subshell bypasses (need a quote-aware tokeniser — safety-critical, its own
+   session); physically archive the two completed `current/` plans.
+5. Preserve Practice-surface coherence and keep the runtime/repo-audit foundations
+   truthful; resist demo-application sprawl.
 
 ## Read order
 

diff --git a/.agent/plans/roadmap.md b/.agent/plans/roadmap.md
@@ -10,8 +10,12 @@ The repo grows in three layers:
 
 ## Near term
 
+- **prove the clone/rename/adapt promise** with a real first-adoption dry-run
+  (see [docs/first-adoption-dry-run.md](../../docs/first-adoption-dry-run.md)) and
+  trim or document whatever friction it surfaces
+- keep the (now substantial) gate, release, and `repo_audit` machinery honest —
+  and proportionate to a template, not a feature product
 - preserve planning, memory, and adapter parity
-- keep repo audit and hooks honest
 - maintain a small but complete demo surface
 
 ## Ongoing constraint

diff --git a/docs/first-adoption-dry-run.md b/docs/first-adoption-dry-run.md
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+# First-adoption dry-run
+
+A structured exercise to prove this template delivers its core promise — that it
+can be **cloned, renamed, and adapted without dragging old product history** — and
+to catch anywhere the rigor has become disproportionate for a *template
+foundation* rather than a feature product.
+
+Run it once, end-to-end, against a throwaway fork. The real output is the
+**friction log** at the bottom, which feeds back into the template.
+
+This is the validation wrapper around the step-by-step
+[rename guide](using-this-template.md); it does not duplicate those steps.
+
+## Why bother
+
+The clone/rename/adapt outcome is currently validated *by construction* — the
+rename guide plus `repo_audit` acting as a rename checklist — not by a real
+adoption. Until someone forks it and follows through, friction and heaviness stay
+invisible. This dry-run makes them visible while they are cheap to fix.
+
+## Setup
+
+- Install the prerequisites from the README (`uv`, the pinned Python, `gitleaks`).
+- Clone into a throwaway location; you will not keep the result.
+- Pick a target identity from the
+  [three names](using-this-template.md#the-three-names).
+
+## Walkthrough
+
+1. **Baseline.** Run `uv sync`, then
+   `uv run python -m oaknational.python_repo_template.devtools check`. Confirm the
+   gates pass out of the box with no manual fix-ups, and note how long a cold
+   `check` takes (the wheel smoke dominates) — that wait is part of the adopter
+   experience.
+2. **Rename.** Work through the rename guide's
+   [ordered steps](using-this-template.md#ordered-steps). After each step, `check`
+   should point you at exactly the surfaces you still need to change. Watch for the
+   opposite failure too: any surface that needed renaming but the audit did *not*
+   flag is a gap to close in `repo_audit`.
+3. **Adapt.** Replace or delete the `activity-report` demo and relax the
+   demo-specific audits as the guide describes. Confirm you can remove the demo
+   without fighting the gates, and that nothing forces you to keep Oak-specific
+   content you do not want.
+4. **Understand the release model from the docs alone.** Without asking anyone,
+   confirm from README "## Releases", `docs/dev-tooling.md`, and
+   [docs/repository-governance.md](repository-governance.md) what a new project
+   needs to release — and what to change if you do *not* have the Oak Semantic
+   Release Bot (an adopter outside Oak supplies their own GitHub App + secrets, or
+   a simpler trigger). If publishing to PyPI, also read
+   [docs/publishing-to-pypi.md](publishing-to-pypi.md).
+5. **First green PR and release.** Open a PR on the renamed repo, let it merge, and
+   confirm CI is green and a release is cut without manual intervention.
+
+## Acceptance checklist
+
+- [ ] A cold `check` passes on a fresh clone with no manual fix-ups.
+- [ ] After the rename, `check` is green and `repo_audit` passes.
+- [ ] The audit flagged every surface that needed renaming (no silent misses).
+- [ ] The demo was cleanly replaceable or removable.
+- [ ] The release model was understandable from the docs alone.
+- [ ] A first release was cut from a PR merge without manual steps.
+
+## Friction log
+
+Record every snag, surprise, or "this felt heavier than a template should be":
+
+- Replace this line with real entries as you hit them.
+
+For each entry, decide one of: **trim** (remove the rigor), **document** (add a
+note to the rename guide or `dev-tooling.md`), or **accept** (it is proportionate;
+leave it). Heaviness with no proportionate value is a signal to simplify — the
+template's identity is a *lightweight foundation*, not a feature product.
diff --git a/docs/using-this-template.md b/docs/using-this-template.md
@@ -52,12 +52,15 @@ in which case also rename the `src/oaknational/` directory and the
 7. **Re-run `check` until green**, then commit on a branch and open a PR — the
    same workflow the template models.
 
+To pressure-test your adoption (and the template itself), work through the
+[first-adoption dry-run](first-adoption-dry-run.md) and log any friction.
+
 ## What you are keeping
 
 The value of the template is the *infrastructure*, not the demo: the `src/`
 layout, the single `devtools` gate surface, the full blocking gate sequence
 (format, type-check, lint, markdown, spell-check, import-linter,
 dependency-hygiene, pip-audit, repo-audit, build, test, coverage), the
-SHA-pinned CI with Dependabot, the release-PR automation, the secret-scanning
-gate, and the `.agent/` working method. Those stay as-is; only the names and the
+SHA-pinned CI with Dependabot, the continuous-release-on-merge automation, the
+secret-scanning gate, and the `.agent/` working method. Those stay as-is; only the names and the
 demo change.