RFC Template

# RFC NNNN: [Short title]

## Header

- **RFC number:** NNNN
- **Title:** [Concise descriptive title]
- **Type:** [Editorial / Substantive / Governance / Upstream]
- **Author(s):** [Name(s) and organization(s)]
- **Date submitted:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
- **Public comment period:** [will be set by the caretaker on opening]
- **Status:** [Draft / Open for comments / Decision pending / Accepted / Rejected / Withdrawn]
- **Affects:** [Common core / Declination(s) / Helper agent(s) / Certification scheme / Validation methodology / Governance]
- **Supersedes:** [Previous RFC number(s) if any]

## Abstract

[One paragraph summarizing what this RFC proposes and why. Should be readable in 30 seconds and convey the essential.]

## Motivation

[Why this change should be made. What problem does it solve? What gap does it fill? What observation triggered the proposal? Aim for clarity, not length.]

## Detailed proposal

[The actual proposal, in operational detail. If the RFC modifies an existing document, quote the current text and propose the new text in clear before/after form. If the RFC introduces something new, write it in the form it would take in the published framework.]

## Empirical evidence (if substantive)

*[This section is required for all substantive RFCs (additions, modifications, promotions). It is the place where the proposer cites the observations that motivate the proposal. See [`../validation/methodology.md`](/validation/methodology.html) for what counts as good evidence.]*

### Evidence cited

- **EVT-YYYY-NNNN** — [brief description and what it shows]
- **EVT-YYYY-NNNN** — [brief description and what it shows]
- *(add as many as relevant)*

### Quality of evidence

[Briefly characterize the strength and limits of the evidence: how many independent sources, what kinds (implementation, supervision, research), what is missing, what counter-evidence has been engaged with.]

### Counter-evidence engaged with

[Are there observations that go in the opposite direction? Cite them and explain how the proposal accommodates them or why they should not block the proposal.]

## Cross-declination convergence (if promotion)

*[This section is required for promotion RFCs (RFCs that propose moving a requirement into the common core). It demonstrates compliance with the multiple implementations rule.]*

### Declinations citing this requirement

- **CTF-X v[version]**, section [reference] — [quote or paraphrase]
- **CTF-Y v[version]**, section [reference] — [quote or paraphrase]
- *(at least two independent declinations are required)*

### Convergence analysis

[Summary of how the requirements compare across declinations. Are they direct matches, conceptual matches, or partial matches? Was CTF Converger used? Reference the convergence analysis if so.]

### Proposed common-core formulation

[The wording the requirement would take in the common core. Should subsume the variations observed across declinations while remaining as light as possible.]

## Impact analysis

### On adopters

[How would adopters be affected? Would they need to change anything? What is the expected effort? Is there a transition period?]

### On declinations

[How would existing declinations be affected? Do they already comply or would they need to adjust?]

### On helper agents

[Would any of the helper agents need updating?]

### On the certification scheme

[Does this affect what platforms self-declare or what federations certify?]

## Alternatives considered

[What other approaches were considered, and why was the proposed approach chosen over them? Honest engagement with alternatives strengthens an RFC.]

## Open questions

[List any questions you do not feel ready to resolve and would like the public comment period to address.]

## Public comments

*[This section will be populated during the public comment period. Submitters of comments may add their entries here through pull requests.]*

### [YYYY-MM-DD] — [Commenter name and organization]

[Comment text]

### [YYYY-MM-DD] — [Commenter name and organization]

[Comment text]

## Scientific panel opinion (if substantive and panel exists)

*[Filled in by the caretaker when the scientific panel issues its non-binding opinion on the quality of evidence.]*

## Consultative council opinion (if substantive and council exists)

*[Filled in by the caretaker when the consultative council issues its non-binding opinion on the proposal.]*

## Caretaker decision

*[Filled in by the caretaker at the end of the comment period. Includes: the decision (accepted / accepted with modifications / rejected / returned for revision), the date, the motivation engaging substantively with comments and panel/council opinions, and — if accepted — the version into which the change is integrated.]*

## Changelog of this RFC

- **[YYYY-MM-DD]** — Initial submission.
- *(record subsequent revisions of the RFC itself here)*