diff --git a/docs/dialogues/cross-repo-realms-refinement.dialogue.md b/docs/dialogues/cross-repo-realms-refinement.dialogue.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a6da30c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/dialogues/cross-repo-realms-refinement.dialogue.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1655 @@
+# Alignment Dialogue: Cross-Repo Realms Refinement
+
+**Purpose:** Refine RFC 0001 proposal for cross-repo coordination
+**Date:** 2026-01-24
+**Experts:** 12
+**Max Rounds:** 12
+
+---
+
+## Expert Panel
+
+| ID | Expert | Domain | Perspective |
+|----|--------|--------|-------------|
+| A | **Alex Chen** | Distributed Systems | Consistency, failure modes, CAP tradeoffs |
+| B | **Barbara Liskov** | Software Design | Abstractions, contracts, substitutability |
+| C | **Carl Hewitt** | Actor Model | Message passing, coordination, concurrency |
+| D | **Diana Rowan** | DevOps/GitOps | Workflow practicality, CI/CD integration |
+| E | **Erik Meijer** | Type Systems | Schema evolution, versioning, compatibility |
+| F | **Fiona Walsh** | Security | Trust boundaries, least privilege, audit |
+| G | **Greg Wilson** | Developer Experience | Cognitive load, discoverability, errors |
+| H | **Helen Garcia** | Graph Theory | Relationship modeling, traversal, cycles |
+| I | **Ivan Petrov** | Database Systems | Transactions, consistency, durability |
+| J | **Julia Santos** | API Design | Contracts, versioning, backwards compatibility |
+| K | **Kevin Ng** | Build Systems | Dependencies, caching, incremental updates |
+| L | **Laura Kim** | Organizational Design | Conway's Law, team boundaries, ownership |
+
+---
+
+## Round 1: Initial Reactions
+
+**Facilitator:** We have RFC 0001 proposing a Realm → Domain → Repo hierarchy where domains are coordination contexts (edges) between repos (nodes). Each domain has contracts that repos export/import. Session coordination uses IPC sockets. Unified worktrees span repos. Initial reactions?
+
+---
+
+**Alex Chen (Distributed Systems):**
+
+The IPC socket approach concerns me. What happens when:
+1. A session crashes without cleanup - stale socket files
+2. Network partition in a distributed team - socket on one machine, realm on another
+3. Race conditions when two sessions modify the same contract
+
+The `/tmp/blue/{realm}/sessions.json` is a single point of coordination. Who owns the lock? What's the conflict resolution?
+
+**Question for the group:** Should we consider a more robust coordination mechanism, or is "good enough" acceptable for a developer tool?
+
+---
+
+**Barbara Liskov (Software Design):**
+
+The abstraction layers feel right: Index → Realm → Domain → Repo. But I'm concerned about the contract model.
+
+Looking at `domains/{domain}/contracts/{contract}.yaml` - the contract has both a `schema` and a `value`. This conflates the interface with the implementation. A contract should define *what* is promised, not the current state.
+
+**Proposal:** Separate contract schema from contract instances:
+```
+domains/s3-access/
+  contracts/
+    s3-permissions.schema.yaml   # The interface
+  instances/
+    s3-permissions.v1.3.0.yaml   # Immutable snapshot
+```
+
+This enables true versioning and rollback.
+
+---
+
+**Carl Hewitt (Actor Model):**
+
+The IPC model is too synchronous. Consider:
+
+```
+Aperture session: "I changed the contract"
+             → broadcasts to fungal session
+             → fungal session busy, message queued
+             → aperture developer moves on
+             → 10 minutes later, fungal session processes
+```
+
+This is the actor model working correctly! But the RFC assumes real-time awareness. The design should embrace asynchronous notification:
+
+1. Messages are durable (not just socket writes)
+2. Sessions process at their own pace
+3. State is eventually consistent
+
+---
+
+**Diana Rowan (DevOps/GitOps):**
+
+From a practical workflow perspective:
+
+1. `blue realm worktree` creates worktrees in multiple repos - but what if one repo is on a locked branch? Partial failure?
+
+2. `blue realm commit` with the same message everywhere - but repos have different commit message conventions. Some require ticket numbers.
+
+3. `blue realm pr` assumes GitHub - what about GitLab, Bitbucket?
+
+**Question:** How do we handle heterogeneous environments?
+
+---
+
+**Erik Meijer (Type Systems):**
+
+The versioning story is incomplete. The RFC mentions semver for contracts, but:
+
+1. Who decides what's a breaking change? The exporter? An automated check?
+2. How do we handle diamond dependencies? Repo A exports v1.3, Repo B imports >=1.0, Repo C imports >=1.2 - what if they both import in the same domain?
+3. Contract schemas can evolve - is `{read: string[], write: string[]}` compatible with `{read: string[], write: string[], delete: string[]}`?
+
+**Proposal:** Explicit compatibility rules in the schema definition.
+
+---
+
+**Fiona Walsh (Security):**
+
+Trust model needs more thought:
+
+1. The realm repo is a shared resource. Who can commit? CODEOWNERS helps but isn't enforced locally.
+2. A malicious repo could claim to export a contract it doesn't actually implement.
+3. Session registration in `/tmp/blue/` - any local process can write there.
+4. GitHub issue creation requires tokens - where are credentials stored?
+
+**Minimum:** The RFC should explicitly state the threat model and trust assumptions.
+
+---
+
+## Scoreboard After Round 1
+
+| Expert | Position | Key Concern |
+|--------|----------|-------------|
+| Alex | Skeptical | IPC robustness, race conditions |
+| Barbara | Refinement | Separate schema from instance |
+| Carl | Refinement | Embrace async, durable messages |
+| Diana | Practical | Heterogeneous environments |
+| Erik | Refinement | Versioning rules, compatibility |
+| Fiona | Skeptical | Trust model gaps |
+
+---
+
+## Round 2: Deep Dives
+
+**Greg Wilson (Developer Experience):**
+
+Reading the RFC, I count 13 new `blue realm *` commands. That's a lot of surface area.
+
+Current Blue has maybe 20 commands total? This doubles it. And the mental model required:
+- Index contains Realms
+- Realms contain Domains and Repos
+- Domains contain Contracts and Bindings
+- Repos export/import through Bindings
+
+That's 5 levels of abstraction before you can sync a change.
+
+**Counter-proposal:** Start with just 3 commands:
+1. `blue realm join <realm>` - join a realm
+2. `blue realm sync` - detect and sync changes
+3. `blue realm status` - show what's happening
+
+Let the tool infer domains/contracts from code patterns. Advanced users can use config files for overrides.
+
+---
+
+**Helen Garcia (Graph Theory):**
+
+The domain-as-edge model is interesting but has implications:
+
+1. **Hyperedges:** What if 3+ repos need to coordinate? A domain with 3 members is a hyperedge. The current model supports this, but visualization and reasoning get complex.
+
+2. **Cycles:** Repo A exports to Domain X, imports from Domain Y. Repo B exports to Domain Y, imports from Domain X. This creates a cycle. Is this allowed? How do you order commits/PRs?
+
+3. **Transitivity:** If A→B→C through two domains, does A need awareness of C? The current model says no, but in practice changes cascade.
+
+**Suggestion:** Add a `blue realm graph` visualization that shows the full dependency network.
+
+---
+
+**Ivan Petrov (Database Systems):**
+
+The realm repo is essentially a distributed database with git as the transport. But git doesn't provide:
+
+1. **Transactions:** `blue realm sync` modifies the realm repo, but what if two repos sync simultaneously? Git merge conflicts.
+
+2. **Atomicity:** A coordinated commit across 3 repos - if one fails, you have an inconsistent state.
+
+3. **Isolation:** While I'm syncing, you're syncing - we might see each other's partial changes.
+
+**Proposal:** Use git branches for coordination:
+- Each sync operation creates a branch
+- Merge to main requires all affected parties to approve
+- Atomic merge via GitHub Actions or similar
+
+---
+
+**Julia Santos (API Design):**
+
+The contract model needs more rigor:
+
+```yaml
+schema:
+  type: object
+  properties:
+    read:
+      type: array
+      items: { type: string }
+```
+
+This is JSON Schema, which is good. But:
+
+1. How do consumers validate they're using the contract correctly?
+2. The `binding` field points to a file - but that file might use the values differently than intended.
+3. There's no runtime verification that the exporter actually provides what they claim.
+
+**Proposal:** Contracts should include validation hooks:
+```yaml
+validation:
+  exporter: scripts/validate-s3-export.sh
+  importer: scripts/validate-iam-import.sh
+```
+
+---
+
+**Kevin Ng (Build Systems):**
+
+From a caching perspective:
+
+1. `detect_exports()` scans code for patterns. This should be cached and invalidated by file changes.
+
+2. Contract versions are content-addressed? Or sequential? If sequential, we need a coordination point.
+
+3. Worktrees multiply build artifacts. If aperture and fungal both build in worktrees, we need 2x disk space.
+
+**Question:** Is there a way to share build caches across worktrees within a realm?
+
+---
+
+**Laura Kim (Organizational Design):**
+
+Conway's Law applies here. The realm structure will mirror - and influence - org structure.
+
+1. Who "owns" a domain? The exporter? Both parties? A neutral third party?
+2. Governance says `approvers: [email]` - but domains span orgs. Which org's approval process wins?
+3. Breaking changes require approval - but from whom? All importers? Majority?
+
+**Observation:** The RFC assumes collaborative orgs. What about adversarial relationships? A vendor/customer scenario?
+
+---
+
+## Scoreboard After Round 2
+
+| Expert | Position | Key Concern |
+|--------|----------|-------------|
+| Alex | Skeptical | IPC robustness, race conditions |
+| Barbara | Refinement | Separate schema from instance |
+| Carl | Refinement | Embrace async, durable messages |
+| Diana | Practical | Heterogeneous environments |
+| Erik | Refinement | Versioning rules, compatibility |
+| Fiona | Skeptical | Trust model gaps |
+| Greg | Simplify | Too many commands, too much abstraction |
+| Helen | Refinement | Graph visualization, cycle handling |
+| Ivan | Refinement | Git-based transactions |
+| Julia | Refinement | Validation hooks for contracts |
+| Kevin | Practical | Caching, disk space |
+| Laura | Skeptical | Governance across orgs |
+
+---
+
+## Round 3: Synthesis and Proposals
+
+**Facilitator:** Several themes emerging:
+1. Robustness (Alex, Ivan): coordination mechanism needs failure handling
+2. Simplicity (Greg): too much surface area
+3. Trust/Governance (Fiona, Laura): cross-org coordination is hard
+4. Contract rigor (Barbara, Erik, Julia): schema vs instance, versioning, validation
+
+Let's focus on concrete proposals.
+
+---
+
+**Alex Chen:**
+
+Responding to Ivan's git-branch proposal - I like it. Here's a refined version:
+
+**Sync Protocol:**
+1. `blue realm sync` creates branch `sync/{repo}/{timestamp}`
+2. Pushes changes to realm repo
+3. Creates PR with affected parties as reviewers
+4. Only merges when:
+   - All affected importers have acknowledged
+   - OR grace period expires (for non-breaking changes)
+5. On merge, broadcast notification to active sessions
+
+This replaces ephemeral IPC with durable git state. Sessions poll or webhook for updates.
+
+**Trade-off:** Slower (PR-based) but more robust.
+
+---
+
+**Greg Wilson:**
+
+Simplification proposal:
+
+**MVP Command Set:**
+```
+blue realm status          # What realm am I in? What domains? Any issues?
+blue realm sync            # Push my changes, pull others' changes
+blue realm worktree <rfc>  # Create linked worktrees for a change
+```
+
+That's 3 commands. Everything else is either:
+- Automatic (domain/contract detection)
+- Configuration (`.blue/realm.yaml`)
+- Power-user (`blue realm admin ...`)
+
+**Key insight:** Most developers just need sync and worktree. The domain/contract model is an implementation detail.
+
+---
+
+**Barbara Liskov + Erik Meijer (joint):**
+
+**Contract Versioning Proposal:**
+
+```yaml
+# domains/s3-access/contracts/s3-permissions.yaml
+name: s3-permissions
+version: 1.3.0
+
+compatibility:
+  backwards: true      # New version can be read by old importers
+  forwards: true       # Old version can be read by new importers
+
+schema:
+  type: object
+  required: [read]
+  properties:
+    read:
+      type: array
+      items: { type: string }
+    write:
+      type: array
+      items: { type: string }
+      default: []       # Added in v1.1.0, backwards compatible
+    delete:
+      type: array
+      items: { type: string }
+      default: []       # Added in v1.3.0, backwards compatible
+
+evolution:
+  - version: 1.0.0
+    changes: ["Initial schema with read array"]
+  - version: 1.1.0
+    changes: ["Added optional write array"]
+    compatible: true
+  - version: 1.3.0
+    changes: ["Added optional delete array"]
+    compatible: true
+```
+
+**Rule:** Adding optional fields with defaults = compatible. Removing or changing required fields = breaking.
+
+Automated compatibility checking at sync time.
+
+---
+
+**Fiona Walsh:**
+
+**Trust Model Proposal:**
+
+```yaml
+# realm.yaml
+trust:
+  mode: collaborative   # or: vendor-customer, federation
+
+  # Who can modify what
+  permissions:
+    repos/{repo}.yaml: [maintainers]           # Repo maintainers edit their own
+    domains/{domain}/domain.yaml: [domain_owners]
+    domains/{domain}/contracts/*: [exporters]   # Only exporters modify contracts
+    domains/{domain}/bindings/*: [binding_owner] # Each repo owns its binding
+
+  # Verification
+  verification:
+    require_signed_commits: true
+    require_pr_approval: true
+    allowed_signers: .allowed_signers
+```
+
+**Key principle:** Each party controls their own artifacts. Shared state (domain.yaml) requires consensus.
+
+---
+
+**Laura Kim:**
+
+**Governance Across Orgs:**
+
+The RFC assumes a single realm.yaml governance model. But cross-org scenarios need:
+
+```yaml
+# domains/s3-access/governance.yaml
+ownership:
+  primary: aperture      # The "product owner" of this coordination
+  stakeholders:
+    - fungal-image-analysis
+
+decisions:
+  breaking_changes:
+    require: all_stakeholders
+    timeout_days: 14
+    escalation: primary_decides
+
+  new_versions:
+    require: primary_only
+    notify: all_stakeholders
+
+meetings:
+  sync_cadence: weekly
+  channel: "#s3-access-coord"
+```
+
+**Observation:** Domain-level governance may differ from realm-level governance.
+
+---
+
+## Emerging Consensus
+
+| Topic | Proposal | Support |
+|-------|----------|---------|
+| Coordination | Git PRs instead of IPC | Alex, Ivan, Fiona |
+| Commands | 3-command MVP | Greg |
+| Contracts | Schema + compatibility rules | Barbara, Erik, Julia |
+| Trust | Explicit permissions model | Fiona |
+| Governance | Domain-level overrides | Laura |
+
+---
+
+## Round 4: Contentions
+
+**Carl Hewitt:**
+
+I disagree with the PR-based coordination. It's too slow for local development.
+
+**Counter-proposal:** Hybrid approach:
+1. **Local sessions:** IPC for real-time awareness (best-effort)
+2. **Durable state:** Git PRs for actual contract changes
+
+The IPC layer says "hey, something changed" - it's a hint, not a commitment. The PR layer is the source of truth.
+
+This gives you fast feedback during development, with robust durability for production changes.
+
+---
+
+**Diana Rowan:**
+
+The 3-command MVP is too minimal. You need at least:
+
+```
+blue realm status       # Read-only
+blue realm sync         # Push/pull changes
+blue realm worktree     # Cross-repo branches
+blue realm pr           # Cross-repo PRs (because this is non-trivial)
+blue realm check        # CI/CD hook - validates contracts
+```
+
+5 commands. Still manageable. The `check` command is critical for CI integration.
+
+---
+
+**Kevin Ng:**
+
+On caching and performance - neither IPC nor PR-based helps with:
+
+1. `detect_exports()` needs to parse code every time
+2. Contract validation runs on every sync
+3. Worktrees duplicate entire repos
+
+**Proposal:** Add a local cache layer:
+```
+.blue/cache/
+  exports.json          # Cached detected exports
+  contracts/            # Cached contract schemas
+  mtimes.json           # File modification times for invalidation
+```
+
+This is orthogonal to the coordination mechanism debate.
+
+---
+
+**Helen Garcia:**
+
+On cycles - the RFC doesn't address this. If domains form a cycle:
+
+```
+A exports to B (domain: d1)
+B exports to C (domain: d2)
+C exports to A (domain: d3)
+```
+
+Then `blue realm pr` cannot determine merge order.
+
+**Solutions:**
+1. Detect and forbid cycles at domain creation
+2. Allow cycles but require manual ordering
+3. Treat cycles as a "federation" requiring synchronized release
+
+I prefer option 1 for MVP. Cycles add complexity that most teams don't need.
+
+---
+
+## Round 5: Convergence
+
+**Facilitator:** Let's try to converge on key decisions.
+
+---
+
+**Decision 1: Coordination Mechanism**
+
+| Option | Proponents | Trade-offs |
+|--------|------------|------------|
+| IPC only | Carl (partial) | Fast, fragile |
+| PR only | Alex, Ivan | Slow, robust |
+| Hybrid | Carl, Diana | Complex, flexible |
+
+**Vote:** Hybrid wins (7-5)
+
+**Resolution:**
+- IPC for local session awareness (optional, best-effort)
+- Git branches + PRs for durable contract changes
+
+---
+
+**Decision 2: Command Surface**
+
+| Option | Proponents | Trade-offs |
+|--------|------------|------------|
+| 3 commands | Greg | Minimal, may be limiting |
+| 5 commands | Diana | Practical, covers CI |
+| 13 commands | (RFC) | Complete, overwhelming |
+
+**Vote:** 5 commands wins (8-4)
+
+**Resolution:**
+```
+blue realm status
+blue realm sync
+blue realm worktree
+blue realm pr
+blue realm check
+```
+
+Advanced commands under `blue realm admin ...`.
+
+---
+
+**Decision 3: Contract Model**
+
+**Consensus:** Adopt Barbara/Erik's proposal with Julia's validation hooks.
+
+```yaml
+name: s3-permissions
+version: 1.3.0
+
+compatibility:
+  backwards: true
+  forwards: true
+
+schema: { ... }
+
+validation:
+  exporter: scripts/validate-export.sh
+  importer: scripts/validate-import.sh
+
+evolution:
+  - version: 1.0.0
+    changes: [...]
+```
+
+---
+
+**Decision 4: Trust Model**
+
+**Consensus:** Adopt Fiona's proposal.
+
+- Each party controls their own artifacts
+- Shared state requires consensus
+- Signed commits recommended for cross-org
+
+---
+
+**Decision 5: Governance**
+
+**Consensus:** Domain-level governance (Laura's proposal) as optional extension.
+
+MVP: Realm-level governance applies to all domains.
+Extension: Domains can override with their own governance.yaml.
+
+---
+
+**Decision 6: Cycles**
+
+**Consensus:** Forbid cycles for MVP (Helen's option 1).
+
+Detect at domain creation time. Error message suggests restructuring.
+
+---
+
+## Round 6: Refined Proposal
+
+**Facilitator:** Let's synthesize the decisions into a refined proposal.
+
+---
+
+### Refined Architecture
+
+```
+Index (~/.blue/index.yaml)
+  └── Realm (git repo)
+        ├── repos/           # Participating repos
+        └── domains/         # Coordination contexts
+              ├── domain.yaml
+              ├── governance.yaml (optional)
+              ├── contracts/
+              │     └── {name}.yaml  # Schema + version + validation
+              └── bindings/
+                    └── {repo}.yaml  # Export/import declarations
+```
+
+### Coordination Model
+
+1. **Local awareness (IPC):** Optional session registration for real-time hints
+2. **Durable changes (Git):** Contract changes go through PR workflow
+
+```
+Developer changes export
+  → blue realm sync (creates branch, opens PR)
+  → Affected repos notified (GitHub, IPC)
+  → Review and merge
+  → Sessions detect merged change
+```
+
+### Command Surface (MVP)
+
+| Command | Purpose |
+|---------|---------|
+| `blue realm status` | Show realm state, domains, any issues |
+| `blue realm sync` | Push local changes, pull remote changes |
+| `blue realm worktree` | Create linked worktrees across repos |
+| `blue realm pr` | Create coordinated PRs with merge order |
+| `blue realm check` | Validate contracts (for CI) |
+
+### Contract Model
+
+```yaml
+name: s3-permissions
+version: 1.3.0
+
+compatibility:
+  backwards: true
+
+schema:
+  type: object
+  required: [read]
+  properties:
+    read: { type: array, items: { type: string } }
+    write: { type: array, items: { type: string }, default: [] }
+
+validation:
+  exporter: scripts/validate-s3-paths.sh
+  importer: scripts/validate-iam-policy.sh
+
+evolution:
+  - version: 1.0.0
+    changes: ["Initial"]
+  - version: 1.3.0
+    changes: ["Added write"]
+    compatible: true
+```
+
+### Trust Model
+
+```yaml
+# realm.yaml
+trust:
+  mode: collaborative
+  require_signed_commits: false  # MVP default
+  permissions:
+    repos/*: [repo_maintainers]
+    domains/*/contracts/*: [exporters]
+    domains/*/bindings/{repo}.yaml: [repo_maintainers]
+```
+
+### Cycle Prevention
+
+At domain creation:
+1. Build dependency graph
+2. Detect cycles using topological sort
+3. Reject if cycle detected
+
+```
+$ blue realm domain create feedback-loop --repos a,b
+Error: Adding this domain creates a cycle:
+  a → (s3-access) → b → (feedback-loop) → a
+
+Consider:
+  - Merging domains into a single coordination context
+  - Restructuring the dependency direction
+```
+
+---
+
+## Final Scoreboard
+
+| Expert | Final Position | Satisfied? |
+|--------|---------------|------------|
+| Alex | Support | Yes - hybrid approach addresses robustness |
+| Barbara | Support | Yes - contract model improved |
+| Carl | Support | Yes - hybrid preserves real-time hints |
+| Diana | Support | Yes - 5 commands is practical |
+| Erik | Support | Yes - compatibility rules included |
+| Fiona | Support | Yes - trust model explicit |
+| Greg | Support | Yes - reduced to 5 commands |
+| Helen | Support | Yes - cycles forbidden |
+| Ivan | Support | Yes - git-based durability |
+| Julia | Support | Yes - validation hooks included |
+| Kevin | Neutral | Caching not fully addressed |
+| Laura | Support | Yes - domain-level governance option |
+
+**Consensus:** 11 support, 1 neutral
+
+---
+
+## Open Items for Future Rounds
+
+1. **Caching strategy** (Kevin): How to avoid re-parsing on every sync?
+2. **CI/CD integration details** (Diana): Exact `check` command behavior
+3. **IPC implementation** (Carl): Socket vs file-based vs other
+4. **Credential management** (Fiona): Where do GitHub tokens live?
+5. **Multi-realm** (deferred): Repo in multiple realms
+6. **Conflict resolution** (Ivan): What if two syncs conflict?
+
+---
+
+---
+
+## Round 7: Caching Strategy
+
+**Facilitator:** Kevin raised concerns about performance - parsing code on every sync, validating contracts repeatedly, worktree disk usage. Let's address caching.
+
+---
+
+**Kevin Ng (Build Systems):**
+
+Here's my detailed proposal for the caching layer:
+
+```
+.blue/cache/
+├── exports/
+│   ├── manifest.json        # {file_path: mtime, hash}
+│   └── detected.json        # Cached export detection results
+├── contracts/
+│   ├── s3-access/
+│   │   └── s3-permissions.json  # Parsed contract schema
+│   └── checksums.json       # {contract: sha256}
+└── validation/
+    └── results.json         # {contract_version: {valid: bool, at: timestamp}}
+```
+
+**Invalidation rules:**
+1. **Exports:** Invalidate when source file mtime changes
+2. **Contracts:** Invalidate when realm repo pulls new commits
+3. **Validation:** Invalidate when contract version changes OR binding changes
+
+**Disk usage for worktrees:**
+- Use `git worktree` with shared object store (already does this)
+- Build artifacts: Honor existing tool caches (cargo target/, node_modules/)
+- Realm cache: Shared across worktrees (single `.blue/cache/` in main repo)
+
+---
+
+**Alex Chen:**
+
+The cache needs to be safe for concurrent access. Two scenarios:
+
+1. **Same machine, two terminals:** File locking on manifest.json
+2. **Same repo, two worktrees:** Shared cache with worktree-specific overrides
+
+**Proposal:** Use SQLite for cache instead of JSON files. It handles concurrent access properly.
+
+```sql
+CREATE TABLE export_cache (
+    file_path TEXT PRIMARY KEY,
+    mtime INTEGER,
+    hash TEXT,
+    exports JSON,
+    cached_at INTEGER
+);
+
+CREATE TABLE contract_cache (
+    domain TEXT,
+    contract TEXT,
+    version TEXT,
+    schema JSON,
+    cached_at INTEGER,
+    PRIMARY KEY (domain, contract, version)
+);
+```
+
+---
+
+**Ivan Petrov:**
+
+I agree with Alex. SQLite also gives us:
+
+1. **Atomic updates:** No partial writes
+2. **Query capability:** Find all stale entries efficiently
+3. **Vacuum:** Reclaim space from old entries
+
+One cache database per repo: `.blue/cache.db`
+
+For worktrees, the main repo's cache is authoritative. Worktrees can have a local overlay:
+```
+main/.blue/cache.db           # Shared
+worktree/.blue/cache.local.db # Worktree-specific overrides
+```
+
+---
+
+**Greg Wilson:**
+
+From a UX perspective, caching should be invisible. But we need escape hatches:
+
+```bash
+blue realm sync --no-cache    # Force fresh detection
+blue cache clear              # Wipe cache
+blue cache stats              # Show cache hit rates
+```
+
+The `cache` subcommand is power-user only, not part of the 5-command MVP.
+
+---
+
+**Decision: Caching**
+
+| Aspect | Resolution |
+|--------|------------|
+| Storage | SQLite `.blue/cache.db` |
+| Concurrency | SQLite handles it |
+| Worktrees | Shared cache + local overlay |
+| Invalidation | mtime + hash for files, commit SHA for contracts |
+| UX | Invisible by default, `--no-cache` escape hatch |
+
+**Kevin:** Satisfied. SQLite is the right choice.
+
+---
+
+## Round 8: CI/CD Integration
+
+**Facilitator:** Diana raised the need for CI/CD integration. Let's define the `blue realm check` command precisely.
+
+---
+
+**Diana Rowan (DevOps/GitOps):**
+
+CI needs to answer these questions:
+
+1. **On PR in repo:** Does this change break any contracts we export?
+2. **On PR in realm repo:** Is the contract change compatible?
+3. **On merge:** Are all importers updated for breaking changes?
+
+**Proposed `blue realm check` modes:**
+
+```bash
+# In a repo's CI pipeline
+blue realm check --mode=exporter
+# Validates: exported contracts match code
+# Fails if: code changed but contract not updated
+
+blue realm check --mode=importer
+# Validates: bindings satisfy imported contracts
+# Fails if: contract updated but binding stale
+
+# In realm repo's CI pipeline
+blue realm check --mode=contract
+# Validates: contract schema is valid, version bumped correctly
+# Fails if: breaking change without major version bump
+```
+
+---
+
+**Julia Santos:**
+
+The validation hooks we defined earlier should run in CI:
+
+```yaml
+# Contract with validation
+validation:
+  exporter: scripts/validate-s3-paths.sh
+  importer: scripts/validate-iam-policy.sh
+  ci_only:
+    - scripts/integration-test.sh  # Only in CI, not local
+```
+
+**Exit codes:**
+- 0: Valid
+- 1: Invalid (hard fail)
+- 2: Warning (soft fail, can be overridden)
+
+---
+
+**Erik Meijer:**
+
+For compatibility checking, we need to define it precisely:
+
+```bash
+blue realm check --mode=compatibility --from=1.2.0 --to=1.3.0
+```
+
+**Algorithm:**
+1. Parse both schemas
+2. For each field in old schema:
+   - If required and missing in new: BREAKING
+   - If type changed: BREAKING
+3. For each field in new schema:
+   - If required and not in old: BREAKING (unless has default)
+   - If optional with default: COMPATIBLE
+
+**Output:**
+```
+Checking s3-permissions 1.2.0 → 1.3.0
+  ✓ read: unchanged
+  ✓ write: unchanged
+  + delete: added (optional, default=[]) - COMPATIBLE
+
+Result: COMPATIBLE (minor version bump OK)
+```
+
+---
+
+**Fiona Walsh:**
+
+CI pipelines need credentials. Where do they come from?
+
+**Proposal:**
+```yaml
+# .github/workflows/realm-check.yml
+env:
+  BLUE_REALM_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.BLUE_REALM_TOKEN }}
+```
+
+The token is a GitHub PAT (or equivalent) with:
+- Read access to realm repo
+- Write access for creating issues (optional)
+
+Blue should work without the token but with reduced functionality:
+- Without token: Can read public realm repos, no notifications
+- With token: Full functionality
+
+---
+
+**Kevin Ng:**
+
+CI caching is different from local caching. We should:
+
+1. **Cache the cache:** Store `.blue/cache.db` in CI cache
+2. **Warm cache:** First CI step pulls realm repo and warms cache
+3. **Incremental:** Only re-validate changed contracts
+
+```yaml
+# GitHub Actions example
+- uses: actions/cache@v3
+  with:
+    path: .blue/cache.db
+    key: blue-cache-${{ hashFiles('.blue/config.yaml') }}
+```
+
+---
+
+**Decision: CI/CD Integration**
+
+| Aspect | Resolution |
+|--------|------------|
+| Modes | `--mode=exporter\|importer\|contract\|compatibility` |
+| Validation | Run hooks, respect exit codes |
+| Compatibility | Automated schema diff with clear BREAKING/COMPATIBLE output |
+| Credentials | Optional env var `BLUE_REALM_TOKEN` |
+| Caching | CI can cache `.blue/cache.db` |
+
+**Diana:** Satisfied. This covers my use cases.
+
+---
+
+## Round 9: IPC Implementation
+
+**Facilitator:** Carl advocated for IPC as a real-time hint layer. Let's nail down the implementation.
+
+---
+
+**Carl Hewitt (Actor Model):**
+
+Given that IPC is "best effort hints" and Git is source of truth, we can simplify:
+
+**Option A: Unix Domain Sockets**
+- Pro: Real-time, bidirectional
+- Con: Platform-specific, requires cleanup
+
+**Option B: File-based polling**
+- Pro: Simple, cross-platform
+- Con: Latency (polling interval)
+
+**Option C: SQLite + inotify/fswatch**
+- Pro: Durable, queryable, cross-platform
+- Con: Slightly more complex
+
+I now prefer **Option C**. Here's why:
+
+```
+/tmp/blue/sessions.db
+
+CREATE TABLE sessions (
+    id TEXT PRIMARY KEY,
+    repo TEXT,
+    realm TEXT,
+    socket_path TEXT,  -- Optional, for direct IPC
+    pid INTEGER,
+    started_at TEXT,
+    last_heartbeat TEXT,
+    active_domains JSON,
+    watching JSON
+);
+
+CREATE TABLE notifications (
+    id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY,
+    realm TEXT,
+    domain TEXT,
+    contract TEXT,
+    from_repo TEXT,
+    change_type TEXT,  -- 'updated', 'breaking', 'new'
+    created_at TEXT,
+    acknowledged_by JSON DEFAULT '[]'
+);
+```
+
+Sessions poll `notifications` table. Fast enough (sub-second) and robust.
+
+---
+
+**Alex Chen:**
+
+I like SQLite for sessions too. It solves:
+
+1. **Stale sessions:** Heartbeat timeout (30s) → auto-cleanup
+2. **Crash recovery:** On startup, check if our session exists, clean if stale
+3. **Race conditions:** SQLite transactions
+
+**Heartbeat protocol:**
+```rust
+// Every 10 seconds
+UPDATE sessions SET last_heartbeat = datetime('now') WHERE id = ?;
+
+// Cleanup query (run periodically)
+DELETE FROM sessions
+WHERE last_heartbeat < datetime('now', '-30 seconds');
+```
+
+---
+
+**Greg Wilson:**
+
+From UX, the session layer should be completely invisible unless something goes wrong:
+
+```bash
+$ blue realm status
+📊 aperture (in realm: letemcook)
+
+Active sessions in realm:
+  • aperture (you) - working on training-metrics-v2
+  • fungal-image-analysis - idle
+
+Recent notifications:
+  ⚠️  5 min ago: fungal updated s3-permissions to 1.4.0
+      Your import is stale. Run 'blue realm sync' to update.
+```
+
+No commands to manage sessions. They just exist.
+
+---
+
+**Fiona Walsh:**
+
+Security consideration: `/tmp/blue/sessions.db` is world-readable by default.
+
+**Mitigation:**
+1. Create `/tmp/blue/` with mode 0700 (user only)
+2. Or use `$XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/blue/` which is per-user
+3. Sessions.db contains no secrets, just coordination state
+
+I'm okay with this as long as we document the security model.
+
+---
+
+**Decision: IPC Implementation**
+
+| Aspect | Resolution |
+|--------|------------|
+| Mechanism | SQLite in `$XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/blue/sessions.db` |
+| Sessions | Table with heartbeat, auto-cleanup stale |
+| Notifications | Table with ack tracking |
+| Polling | Sub-second, triggered by SQLite change detection |
+| Security | User-only directory, no secrets in DB |
+| UX | Invisible, shown in `status` output |
+
+**Carl:** Satisfied. SQLite is a better actor mailbox than sockets.
+
+---
+
+## Round 10: Credential Management
+
+**Facilitator:** Fiona raised credential management. Where do tokens live? How are they scoped?
+
+---
+
+**Fiona Walsh (Security):**
+
+**Credentials needed:**
+
+1. **Realm repo access:** Read (always), Write (for sync)
+2. **Participant repo access:** For creating issues/PRs
+3. **Signing keys:** If we require signed commits
+
+**Proposal: Layered credential sources**
+
+```
+Priority order (first found wins):
+1. Environment: BLUE_REALM_TOKEN, BLUE_GITHUB_TOKEN
+2. Git credential helper: git credential fill
+3. Keychain: macOS Keychain, Linux secret-service
+4. Config file: ~/.blue/credentials.yaml (discouraged)
+```
+
+**Scoping:**
+```yaml
+# ~/.blue/credentials.yaml (if used)
+credentials:
+  - realm: letemcook
+    token: ghp_xxx  # GitHub PAT
+    scope: [read, write, issues]
+
+  - realm: "*"  # Default
+    token_env: GITHUB_TOKEN  # Reference env var
+```
+
+---
+
+**Diana Rowan:**
+
+For CI, we should support GitHub App authentication, not just PATs:
+
+```yaml
+# CI environment
+BLUE_GITHUB_APP_ID: 12345
+BLUE_GITHUB_APP_PRIVATE_KEY: ${{ secrets.APP_KEY }}
+BLUE_GITHUB_APP_INSTALLATION_ID: 67890
+```
+
+GitHub Apps have better permission scoping and don't expire like PATs.
+
+---
+
+**Laura Kim:**
+
+Cross-org scenarios complicate this. If aperture is in Org A and fungal is in Org B:
+
+1. Aperture dev has PAT for Org A
+2. Fungal dev has PAT for Org B
+3. Realm repo might be in Org A, B, or a neutral Org C
+
+**Resolution:** The realm repo should be the only shared resource. Each dev only needs:
+- Read access to realm repo
+- Write access to their own repos
+
+Creating issues in other repos requires either:
+- Cross-org collaboration (GitHub org-to-org)
+- Or: Notifications go to realm repo as issues/discussions instead
+
+---
+
+**Greg Wilson:**
+
+Users shouldn't have to configure credentials for basic usage:
+
+```bash
+$ blue realm join ../realm-letemcook
+# Uses existing git credentials (git credential helper)
+# No additional setup needed
+```
+
+Only prompt for credentials when:
+1. Git credential helper fails
+2. Advanced features needed (cross-repo issues)
+
+---
+
+**Decision: Credential Management**
+
+| Aspect | Resolution |
+|--------|------------|
+| Sources | Env → Git credential → Keychain → Config file |
+| Scoping | Per-realm credentials supported |
+| CI | Support GitHub App auth |
+| Cross-org | Realm repo is shared, issues go there |
+| UX | Use git credentials by default, no extra setup |
+
+**Fiona:** Satisfied. Defense in depth with sensible defaults.
+
+---
+
+## Round 11: Conflict Resolution
+
+**Facilitator:** Ivan raised the question of concurrent syncs. What if two repos sync simultaneously?
+
+---
+
+**Ivan Petrov (Database Systems):**
+
+**Scenario:**
+1. Alice in aperture: `blue realm sync` → creates branch `sync/aperture/t1`
+2. Bob in fungal: `blue realm sync` → creates branch `sync/fungal/t2`
+3. Both push to realm repo
+4. Both open PRs
+5. Alice's PR merges first
+6. Bob's PR now has conflicts
+
+**Git handles this naturally!** Bob's PR shows conflicts, he rebases.
+
+But we can do better with tooling:
+
+```bash
+$ blue realm sync
+⚠️  Conflict detected with recent merge (sync/aperture/t1)
+    Their change: s3-permissions 1.3.0 → 1.4.0
+    Your change: (no contract changes, just binding update)
+
+Options:
+  1. Rebase and retry (recommended)
+  2. Force push (requires --force)
+  3. Abort
+
+Choice [1]:
+```
+
+---
+
+**Alex Chen:**
+
+For the IPC layer, conflicts are even simpler:
+
+```sql
+-- Notification deduplication
+INSERT OR IGNORE INTO notifications (...)
+
+-- Sessions handle notifications idempotently
+-- Seeing the same notification twice is fine
+```
+
+The real question is: what if two exports update the same contract simultaneously?
+
+**Rule:** Contracts are owned by their exporter. Only one repo can export a given contract. Conflict resolved by ownership.
+
+If we ever need multi-exporter contracts:
+- Create separate contracts
+- Or merge into one repo
+- Or use a "meta-contract" that aggregates
+
+---
+
+**Barbara Liskov:**
+
+The contract ownership rule is important. Let's make it explicit:
+
+```yaml
+# domains/s3-access/contracts/s3-permissions.yaml
+name: s3-permissions
+owner: aperture  # Only this repo can modify
+```
+
+Enforced at:
+1. `blue realm sync`: Reject if non-owner tries to modify
+2. Realm repo CI: CODEOWNERS enforces
+
+---
+
+**Helen Garcia:**
+
+What about binding conflicts? Two repos might update their own bindings simultaneously. That's fine - no conflict, they're different files.
+
+But what if the contract changes and a binding update happens at the same time?
+
+**Scenario:**
+1. Alice updates contract to 1.4.0
+2. Bob updates his binding (still referencing 1.3.0)
+3. Both merge
+4. Bob's binding is now stale
+
+**Detection:**
+```sql
+-- In realm repo CI
+SELECT * FROM bindings
+WHERE contract_version < (SELECT version FROM contracts WHERE name = binding.contract)
+```
+
+**Resolution:** CI warns but doesn't block. Staleness is a soft error.
+
+---
+
+**Erik Meijer:**
+
+Version constraints help here:
+
+```yaml
+# fungal's binding
+imports:
+  - contract: s3-permissions
+    version: ">=1.0.0 <2.0.0"  # Semver range
+```
+
+If Alice bumps to 1.4.0 (compatible), Bob's binding is still valid.
+If Alice bumps to 2.0.0 (breaking), Bob's binding fails validation.
+
+The conflict is surfaced as a type error, not a git conflict.
+
+---
+
+**Decision: Conflict Resolution**
+
+| Scenario | Resolution |
+|----------|------------|
+| Concurrent syncs | Git merge/rebase, tooling helps |
+| Same contract, two editors | Ownership rule: one exporter per contract |
+| Binding + contract race | Staleness is soft error, CI warns |
+| Version conflicts | Semver ranges in bindings |
+| IPC conflicts | Idempotent handling, deduplication |
+
+**Ivan:** Satisfied. Ownership + semver + git = robust enough.
+
+---
+
+## Round 12: Final Synthesis
+
+**Facilitator:** Let's consolidate all decisions into the final refined proposal.
+
+---
+
+### Final Architecture
+
+```
+~/.blue/
+├── index.yaml                    # Realms this user participates in
+└── credentials.yaml              # Optional, prefer git credentials
+
+$XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/blue/
+└── sessions.db                   # IPC coordination (SQLite)
+
+realm-{name}/                     # Git repository
+├── realm.yaml                    # Metadata, governance, trust
+├── repos/
+│   └── {repo}.yaml               # Registered repos
+└── domains/
+    └── {domain}/
+        ├── domain.yaml           # Coordination context
+        ├── governance.yaml       # Optional domain-level governance
+        ├── contracts/
+        │   └── {name}.yaml       # Schema, version, validation, owner
+        └── bindings/
+            └── {repo}.yaml       # Export/import declarations
+
+{repo}/.blue/
+├── config.yaml                   # Realm membership, domains
+└── cache.db                      # SQLite cache for exports, contracts
+```
+
+### Command Surface (MVP)
+
+| Command | Purpose | Details |
+|---------|---------|---------|
+| `blue realm status` | Show state | Realm, domains, sessions, notifications |
+| `blue realm sync` | Push/pull | Creates branch, opens PR, handles conflicts |
+| `blue realm worktree` | Linked branches | Creates worktrees in all domain repos |
+| `blue realm pr` | Coordinated PRs | Creates linked PRs with merge order |
+| `blue realm check` | Validation | Modes: exporter, importer, contract, compatibility |
+
+**Power-user commands** (under `blue realm admin`):
+- `blue realm admin init` - Create realm
+- `blue realm admin join` - Join realm
+- `blue realm admin domain` - Manage domains
+- `blue realm admin cache` - Cache management
+
+### Contract Model
+
+```yaml
+name: s3-permissions
+version: 1.4.0
+owner: aperture
+
+compatibility:
+  backwards: true
+  forwards: false
+
+schema:
+  type: object
+  required: [read]
+  properties:
+    read: { type: array, items: { type: string } }
+    write: { type: array, items: { type: string }, default: [] }
+    delete: { type: array, items: { type: string }, default: [] }
+
+validation:
+  exporter: scripts/validate-s3-paths.sh
+  importer: scripts/validate-iam-policy.sh
+  ci_only:
+    - scripts/integration-test.sh
+
+evolution:
+  - version: 1.0.0
+    changes: ["Initial with read"]
+  - version: 1.3.0
+    changes: ["Added write"]
+    compatible: true
+  - version: 1.4.0
+    changes: ["Added delete"]
+    compatible: true
+```
+
+### Binding Model
+
+```yaml
+# Export binding (aperture)
+repo: aperture
+role: provider
+
+exports:
+  - contract: s3-permissions
+    source_files:
+      - models/training/s3_paths.py
+```
+
+```yaml
+# Import binding (fungal)
+repo: fungal-image-analysis
+role: consumer
+
+imports:
+  - contract: s3-permissions
+    version: ">=1.0.0 <2.0.0"
+    binding: cdk/training_tools_access_stack.py
+    status: current
+    resolved_version: 1.4.0
+```
+
+### Coordination Model
+
+```
+┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                    Coordination Layers                        │
+├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Real-time Hints (IPC)                                        │
+│  ┌─────────────┐     SQLite      ┌─────────────┐             │
+│  │ Session A   │◄───sessions.db──►│ Session B   │             │
+│  │ (aperture)  │   notifications  │ (fungal)    │             │
+│  └─────────────┘                  └─────────────┘             │
+│                                                               │
+│  Best-effort, sub-second latency, auto-cleanup               │
+├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Durable Changes (Git)                                        │
+│  ┌─────────────┐                  ┌─────────────┐             │
+│  │ Repo A      │───sync branch───►│ Realm Repo  │             │
+│  │             │◄──PR review──────│             │             │
+│  └─────────────┘                  └─────────────┘             │
+│                                                               │
+│  Source of truth, PR-based, auditable                        │
+└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+### Trust Model
+
+```yaml
+# realm.yaml
+name: letemcook
+version: 1.0.0
+
+governance:
+  admission: approval
+  approvers: [eric@example.com]
+  breaking_changes:
+    require_approval: true
+    grace_period_days: 14
+
+trust:
+  mode: collaborative
+  require_signed_commits: false
+
+  permissions:
+    repos/{repo}.yaml: [repo_maintainers]
+    domains/{domain}/domain.yaml: [domain_owners]
+    domains/{domain}/contracts/{name}.yaml: [contract_owner]
+    domains/{domain}/bindings/{repo}.yaml: [repo_maintainers]
+```
+
+### Caching
+
+```sql
+-- .blue/cache.db
+
+CREATE TABLE export_cache (
+    file_path TEXT PRIMARY KEY,
+    mtime INTEGER,
+    content_hash TEXT,
+    exports JSON,
+    cached_at INTEGER
+);
+
+CREATE TABLE contract_cache (
+    domain TEXT,
+    contract TEXT,
+    version TEXT,
+    schema JSON,
+    realm_commit TEXT,
+    PRIMARY KEY (domain, contract, version)
+);
+
+CREATE TABLE validation_cache (
+    contract TEXT,
+    version TEXT,
+    binding_hash TEXT,
+    valid INTEGER,
+    output TEXT,
+    validated_at INTEGER,
+    PRIMARY KEY (contract, version, binding_hash)
+);
+```
+
+### CI/CD Integration
+
+```yaml
+# .github/workflows/realm-check.yml
+name: Realm Contract Check
+
+on: [push, pull_request]
+
+jobs:
+  check:
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+
+      - uses: actions/cache@v3
+        with:
+          path: .blue/cache.db
+          key: blue-${{ hashFiles('.blue/config.yaml') }}
+
+      - name: Check exports
+        run: blue realm check --mode=exporter
+
+      - name: Check imports
+        run: blue realm check --mode=importer
+        env:
+          BLUE_REALM_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.REALM_TOKEN }}
+```
+
+### Conflict Resolution
+
+| Conflict Type | Detection | Resolution |
+|---------------|-----------|------------|
+| Concurrent sync | Git merge conflict | Rebase and retry |
+| Same contract, two editors | Ownership check | Reject non-owner |
+| Stale binding | Version mismatch | Soft warning, CI flag |
+| Version incompatibility | Semver check | Hard error |
+| Session collision | Unique ID + heartbeat | Auto-cleanup stale |
+
+### Cycle Prevention
+
+```python
+# At domain creation
+def check_cycles(realm, new_domain, new_members):
+    graph = build_dependency_graph(realm)
+    graph.add_edge(new_domain, new_members)
+
+    if has_cycle(graph):
+        cycle = find_cycle(graph)
+        raise CycleError(f"""
+Adding domain '{new_domain}' creates a cycle:
+  {' → '.join(cycle)}
+
+Consider:
+  - Merging related domains
+  - Reversing a dependency direction
+  - Using a hub-and-spoke pattern
+""")
+```
+
+---
+
+## Final Scoreboard
+
+| Expert | Final Position | Concern Addressed? |
+|--------|---------------|-------------------|
+| Alex Chen | **Support** | ✓ SQLite coordination, conflict handling |
+| Barbara Liskov | **Support** | ✓ Contract model with ownership |
+| Carl Hewitt | **Support** | ✓ SQLite as actor mailbox |
+| Diana Rowan | **Support** | ✓ CI/CD integration complete |
+| Erik Meijer | **Support** | ✓ Semver + compatibility rules |
+| Fiona Walsh | **Support** | ✓ Trust model + credentials |
+| Greg Wilson | **Support** | ✓ 5 commands, invisible caching |
+| Helen Garcia | **Support** | ✓ Cycle prevention |
+| Ivan Petrov | **Support** | ✓ SQLite everywhere, transactions |
+| Julia Santos | **Support** | ✓ Validation hooks + CI |
+| Kevin Ng | **Support** | ✓ SQLite cache, CI caching |
+| Laura Kim | **Support** | ✓ Domain-level governance |
+
+**Consensus: 12/12 Support**
+
+---
+
+## Dialogue Complete
+
+**Rounds completed:** 12 of 12
+**Final consensus:** Unanimous support
+**Open items:** None - all addressed
+
+### Summary of Changes from Original RFC
+
+1. **Coordination:** Hybrid IPC (SQLite) + Git PRs instead of socket-only
+2. **Commands:** Reduced from 13 to 5 MVP commands
+3. **Contracts:** Added owner field, compatibility rules, validation hooks
+4. **Caching:** SQLite-based with proper invalidation
+5. **CI/CD:** Defined check modes and GitHub Actions integration
+6. **Credentials:** Layered sources, git-first approach
+7. **Trust:** Explicit permissions model
+8. **Conflicts:** Ownership + semver + git resolution
+9. **Cycles:** Detection and prevention at domain creation
+10. **Governance:** Domain-level overrides supported
+
+### Ready for RFC Update
+
+This dialogue provides the refined design for RFC 0001. Key artifacts to update:
+
+1. Architecture diagram
+2. Command reference (5 MVP + admin commands)
+3. Contract schema (add owner, compatibility, validation)
+4. Binding schema (add semver ranges)
+5. Caching section (SQLite)
+6. CI/CD section (check modes, GitHub Actions)
+7. Trust/governance section
+8. Conflict resolution section
+9. Implementation phases (adjust for new scope)
+
+---
+
+*Dialogue concluded with full consensus.*