Review target

Draft PR: #7

Immutable review head at request creation:

0122c2ab22b6d2380f954db0de69879b23915337

The proposal adds exactly four files, 619 lines, and deletes nothing. Its structural checker reports exactly 247 facets, F001–F247, in 13 sections.

What this review is — and is not

This is a request to test whether the 247-facet catalog is coherent, atomic, falsifiable, and strong enough to guide an industrial and standards-candidate GLYPH.

It is not a request to endorse marketing language. Stars, forks, issue counts, and adoption of exemplar projects are exposure/adoption evidence, not proof that GLYPH implements the imported property.

The draft itself makes no certification claim:

247 DEFINED; 0 CLAIMED CLOSED BY THIS DOCUMENT.

Required independent review record

A valid approval or objection should state:

1. reviewer identity and independence from authorship;
2. exact reviewed commit;
3. review scope;
4. method used;
5. findings by facet ID;
6. unresolved reservations;
7. verdict: APPROVE / APPROVE WITH RESERVATIONS / REQUEST CHANGES.

A reaction, star, or unscoped “looks good” is not counted as technical approval.

Questions

• Are all F001–F247 atomic and non-duplicative?
• Is every minimum closure artifact strong enough for its normative claim?
• Are any requirements application-specific in a way that harms GLYPH's domain neutrality?
• Does the Owner-only preservation law prevent destructive loss without blocking cleanup of ephemeral build outputs?
• Are the thresholds in F238–F247 credible for a future standards claim?
• Which existing GLYPH immutable artifacts can already be mapped, and which remain open?

Preservation rule

No review outcome authorizes deletion. A better alternative is added and linked; deletion or destructive replacement remains an explicit Owner-only decision dated in the project record.