templates/CRG-PROFILE-TEMPLATE.adoc asserts conformance to a CRG spec version that does not exist in this repository.
Evidence
The normative spec declares v2.0, in both its human and machine forms, and a third file agrees:
| File |
Line |
Says |
component-readiness-grades/COMPONENT-READINESS-GRADES.adoc |
3 |
Component Readiness Grades v2.0 |
component-readiness-grades/COMPONENT-READINESS-GRADES.a2ml |
11 |
(version "2.0") |
hypatia-rules/crg-overclaim-detector.a2ml |
242 |
Per CRG v2.0 "honest D > dishonest B" |
The template disagrees, twice:
| File |
Line |
Says |
templates/CRG-PROFILE-TEMPLATE.adoc |
17 |
| CRG Spec Version | 2.2 |
templates/CRG-PROFILE-TEMPLATE.adoc |
25 |
*CRG v2.2 (STRICT)* |
There is no v2.2 spec in the repository. The template is the artefact every downstream CRG profile is copied from, so each profile minted from it inherits a claim of conformance to a nonexistent version — a self-describing standards repository asserting a version of itself that it does not publish.
Why this matters beyond the number
CRG's own overclaim detector exists to catch subjects claiming more than their evidence supports. The template overclaims the spec version it conforms to. That is the same failure the rule polices, one level up.
Two possible cures — needs a ruling
- (a) The template is simply wrong: correct both lines to
2.0. Cheapest, and correct if no v2.2 work was ever done.
- (b) A v2.2 was genuinely drafted and the spec was never bumped: then the spec files are the stale ones, and the substantive question is what v2.2 changed.
git log on the template versus the spec would settle it.
I recommend (a) unless the history shows a real v2.2 body of work, because three independent files say 2.0 and only one says 2.2.
Provenance
Found while reviewing the badge-criteria spec for #446, whose draft listed this discrepancy under "what I did NOT check". The badge spec now cites v2.0 and links here rather than citing both versions unresolved.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
templates/CRG-PROFILE-TEMPLATE.adocasserts conformance to a CRG spec version that does not exist in this repository.Evidence
The normative spec declares v2.0, in both its human and machine forms, and a third file agrees:
component-readiness-grades/COMPONENT-READINESS-GRADES.adocComponent Readiness Grades v2.0component-readiness-grades/COMPONENT-READINESS-GRADES.a2ml(version "2.0")hypatia-rules/crg-overclaim-detector.a2mlPer CRG v2.0 "honest D > dishonest B"The template disagrees, twice:
templates/CRG-PROFILE-TEMPLATE.adoc| CRG Spec Version | 2.2templates/CRG-PROFILE-TEMPLATE.adoc*CRG v2.2 (STRICT)*There is no v2.2 spec in the repository. The template is the artefact every downstream CRG profile is copied from, so each profile minted from it inherits a claim of conformance to a nonexistent version — a self-describing standards repository asserting a version of itself that it does not publish.
Why this matters beyond the number
CRG's own overclaim detector exists to catch subjects claiming more than their evidence supports. The template overclaims the spec version it conforms to. That is the same failure the rule polices, one level up.
Two possible cures — needs a ruling
2.0. Cheapest, and correct if no v2.2 work was ever done.git logon the template versus the spec would settle it.I recommend (a) unless the history shows a real v2.2 body of work, because three independent files say 2.0 and only one says 2.2.
Provenance
Found while reviewing the badge-criteria spec for #446, whose draft listed this discrepancy under "what I did NOT check". The badge spec now cites v2.0 and links here rather than citing both versions unresolved.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code