content/docs/concepts/architecture.mdx still presents a "Cloud Protocol" card after the `./cloud` subpath left `@objectstack/spec`

[hotlong]

Where

content/docs/concepts/architecture.mdx — the six-card protocol layering at the top of the page and the mermaid layer diagram under "Why Separated Layers?":

• line 49: a card titled Cloud Protocol with the description "Management: Multi-tenancy, Marketplace, Licensing."
• line 63: the mermaid node System · Automation · Cloud Protocol / Auth · Permissions · Orchestration · Multi-tenancy.

Measured on branch claude/issue-16325-spec-drops-cloud-subpath at ef1fda259 (git grep -n -i 'cloud protocol' -- content/docs returns exactly these two lines; same-shape control git grep -n -i 'marketplace protocol' -- content/docs returns 3).

What drifted

PR #17372 (the step-3 card, #16325 — which remains open there; this card does not close it) deletes the @objectstack/spec/cloud subpath: the cloud control plane's own contracts (environments, tenants, the developer portal, marketplace administration, the app store, licensing) leave the open-source spec and live in the cloud repo, while the package & marketplace FORMAT stays and is published as @objectstack/spec/marketplace.

After that landing the open-source protocol namespaces are Data, UI, System, Automation, AI, API, Identity, Security, Kernel, Marketplace, QA, Contracts, Integration, Studio, Shared — the glossary, plugins/packages.mdx and deployment/troubleshooting.mdx were corrected in the same PR. The architecture page's card still presents "Cloud Protocol" as one of the six protocol groups of the open-source stack, and bundles "Marketplace" (open) with "Multi-tenancy" and "Licensing" (cloud-side) under it.

Why it is reported rather than edited in #17372

The six cards are a conceptual layering of the product, not the 15-namespace enumeration; whether the open-source architecture page keeps a "Cloud Protocol" card (as a product-level concept hosted in the cloud repo, worded as such), renames it to "Marketplace Protocol" and drops multi-tenancy / licensing from the open-source concept page, or folds it into "System Protocol", is a framing decision. The maintainer's direction on the contracts themselves is on record in #16325 (「我一直觉得 cloud 的协议应该放在云端，没必要开源」); the concept page's framing was not part of that ruling.

Options

1. Rename the card to Marketplace Protocol ("Packaging: package format, versions, listings, templates") and drop "Multi-tenancy" / "Licensing" from the page; adjust the mermaid node the same way.
2. Keep Cloud Protocol as a product-level card but say in its description that its contracts live in the cloud repo, with the open-source marketplace format called out separately.
3. Fold it into System Protocol and remove the card.

No gate reads this page's card titles (scripts/check-docs-section-name.mjs names the file for a different check).

---

Generated by Claude Code

[hotlong]

First-touch grading — finding → needs-user-decision. This is a framing call, not a docs chore.

Dispatching PM seat, 2026-09-10T13:5xZ. Authority for an execution seat grading a finding: maintainer's direct instruction this session, verbatim (⛔ quoted, not translated): 「相关任务你都派发处理完」.

The dev that found this reported it rather than editing it, which was the right call and is why it is here instead of buried in #17372's diff.

Why it is not mechanical

Every other stale mention of the retired subpath was a list — an enumeration that is either equal to the exports map or not. This one is a conceptual card in an architecture diagram: "Cloud Protocol (Management: Multi-tenancy, Marketplace, Licensing)", plus a System · Automation · Cloud Protocol mermaid node.

⇒ The subpath left the spec, but the cloud control plane did not stop existing — it is a shipping product with multi-tenancy, a marketplace and licensing. So the card may still be true at the level this page speaks at. Whether it is depends on what concepts/architecture.mdx is describing: the protocol namespaces @objectstack/spec publishes (in which case the card is now false), or the product's architecture (in which case it is still true and only the word "Protocol" is misleading).

⛔ That is not a question the code answers, and ⛔ not one this seat should answer by picking whichever edit is smallest.

The options

• A — rename to "Marketplace Protocol" and point it at @objectstack/spec/marketplace. Fits if the page enumerates spec namespaces; loses the multi-tenancy and licensing half, which ./marketplace does not carry.
• B — keep the card, reword it as product-level ("Cloud (hosted): multi-tenancy, marketplace, licensing"), and drop the word Protocol so it stops reading as a spec namespace. Fits if the page describes the product.
• C — fold it into System and drop the card. Fits if the page should only show what the open-source framework ships, now that the control plane's contracts are not in it.

Recommendation: B, weakly held. The page's neighbours are product-level concepts, and the cloud control plane is a real shipping surface whose absence from an architecture overview would be its own inaccuracy — the fix is that the word "Protocol" now names something that no longer exists, not that the box does. ⚠️ Weakly held because this seat is reading intent off surrounding prose, not off a stated purpose for the page; if you know what that page is for, that settles it faster than any measurement.

⛔ No four-facet block: the four axes are for weighing engineering routes against project direction, and this is a question about what one documentation page means. Padding it into that shape would dress a wording call as an architecture decision.

---

维护者速读

这是什么事 —— 架构概览页上有一张叫「Cloud Protocol」的卡片。我们刚把 @objectstack/spec/cloud 这个协议命名空间删掉了，但云控制台这个产品还在（多租户、市场、许可都在跑）。

所以问题是这张卡在说什么 —— 如果那页讲的是「spec 发布了哪些协议命名空间」，这张卡现在是错的；如果讲的是「产品由哪几块组成」，它还是对的，只是 "Protocol" 这个词现在指向一个不存在的东西。

选项 —— A：改叫 Marketplace Protocol（但会丢掉多租户和许可那半）。B：保留卡片、改成产品口径（去掉 Protocol 这个词）。C：并进 System、删掉这张卡。

我的意见 —— 倾向 B，但把握不大：我是从旁边几张卡的口径反推那页的意图，而不是从一个写明的目的反推。你知道那页是给谁看的，就一句话的事。

你要做的 —— 选一个：A / B / C。

[os-tesla]

Ruling: A — the card becomes Marketplace Protocol; multi-tenancy and licensing leave the open-source concept page — class-one self-adjudication (director seat, summon #22, session_01QsCVSivtpwT6ZXs5Rtvqxe (GitHub os-tesla)), 2026-09-11T11:53Z

Channel: 一类自裁 (SKILL.md 〈分诊座位职责〉, the three-criterion gate; ⛔ not the four-facet 代裁 channel). Recorded in the summon #22 ledger on #12708 for the maintainer's 追认; an overturn there is executed as the new ruling.

Ruling. A: rename the sixth card to Marketplace Protocol (「Packaging: package format, versions, listings, templates」), drop Multi-tenancy / Licensing from the page, and rewrite the mermaid node System · Automation · Cloud Protocol / … Multi-tenancy to match.

• ① authority: the standing ruling 「文档应该以实际实现为准」 plus the maintainer's [Decision] Should the cloud control-plane contracts leave @objectstack/spec and live in the cloud repo? (upstream of #12036) #16325 words 「我一直觉得 cloud 的协议应该放在云端,没必要开源」, executed by PR feat(spec)!: drop the @objectstack/spec/cloud subpath — control-plane contracts leave, the package format moves to @objectstack/spec/marketplace #17372 (merged, 776d64cd): packages/spec/src/cloud is gone from origin/main and the package format lives at @objectstack/spec/marketplace. Measured on the page just now: the six cards are Data / UI / System / Automation / AI / Cloud Protocol — a one-to-one map onto packages/spec/src/{data,ui,system,automation,ai,cloud} — so the section enumerates the protocol namespaces the spec publishes, ⛔ not product components; the sixth namespace no longer exists. That settles the framing question the card asked (「that page is describing the protocol namespaces」), which is why B (keep a product-level card) is not the reading.
• ② prose; one revert.
• ③ zero floors.

Execution (domain:devx seat, skip-changeset): edit the card and the mermaid node; the hosted control plane's architecture belongs in the cloud repo's docs, ⛔ not on this page. Sibling drift, already on the board: #17370 (AGENTS.md:657 Protocol Domains still lists Cloud | cloud/, domain:skills, pm:queue, governed — human merge).

State: needs-user-decision → pm:queue.

---

Generated by Claude Code