docs(roadmap): conform the Release cells, and rule out the 1.0-cut slot explicitly

Three corrections from the challenge's differential, which caught things both arms missed.

The Release column is a MILESTONE bucket, not a version: FR-031/032/035/036 all read "1.0"
and all shipped in 0.x. "pre-1.0 MINOR" was a mechanism token in a milestone column, so the
cells now read "1.0 · 1.1" — the same compound form FR-024 already uses, and accurate,
since the 1.0 line IS where a pre-1.0 breaking MINOR lands.

Rules out the option both challenge arms treated as non-existent — and it is the one a
reader will reach for first, because it looks free. 1.0.0 is a MAJOR under semver, so a
break landing IN the renumbering is neither a pre-1.0 MINOR nor a 2.0 event. It is still
wrong: §G3 wants "at least one coordinated release … with no metamodel-breaking changes, to
prove the rate has actually dropped". A 1.0 that carries a break has had no quiet period, so
it freezes the vocabulary on a stability claim nothing tested. The gate is about evidence,
not arithmetic — worth writing down, because the arithmetic reading is the tempting one.

Names the tension instead of implying it is closed. CLAUDE.md and the "Before 1.0" section
say GA is next and nothing blocks it; this section says a breaking MINOR comes first. Both
challenge arms leaned on roadmap:139 to conclude a further MINOR is available and neither
engaged the contrary evidence — so the section now states the choice and points at #210's
reversal trigger as the mechanism for making it. The one thing that stays unavailable either
way is targeting the breaking half at 1.1.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01DhpswkF1NvwxhFWMmdAT15

Author: dmealing

spec/roadmap.md

@@ -48,8 +48,8 @@ under **Shipped**; planned FRs under **Planned** + the **Release plan**. ✅ shi
 | FR-034 | Ecosystem tier — connected systems (`system`/`container`/`surface`/`environment`) | 📋 designed (**draft, deferred post-1.0**) | 1.1 | — |
 | FR-035 | Present-key PATCH tristate (mutation surface) | 🟢 shipped 5 ports (absent→untouched / present-null→clears / null-on-`@required`→400); coordinated **breaking** release held for FR-036 | 1.0 | — |
 | FR-036 | Constraint-validation enforcement + semantic pins | 🟢 shipped 5 ports in the coordinated `0.16.0`/`7.8.0` breaking release (required-string = non-empty·accept-whitespace · `@Pattern` = full-match · strictest-wins length; HTTP-tier enforcement all 5 ports; TPH tristate) | 1.0 | — |
-| FR-037 | Projection expressiveness (`origin.rank`) + field write-access modes (`@mutability`) | ⚪ requirements (pre-design), decisions resolved. **R1/R2 retire registered vocabulary (`@readOnly`), so the breaking half must ride a coordinated pre-1.0 breaking MINOR** — post-1.0 a metamodel-vocabulary break is a 2.0 event (ADR-0035 §1), not a 1.1 minor. `origin.rank` + the rest are additive → 1.1. Design: `docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-10-fr-037-projection-expressiveness-and-write-once-design.md` | pre-1.0 MINOR · 1.1 | — |
-| FR-038 | Requirement-derived test stubs (inverts `@verifiedBy`) | ⚪ proposed. Generate the test from the requirement so the link is structural, not a name the author picks — an audit of one 19-name ledger found 4 names that did not verify their claim. **The `@verifiedBy` retirement is breaking and rides the SAME pre-1.0 MINOR as FR-037's R1/R2, not a second one**; the stub generator is additive → 1.1. Design: `docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-15-fr-038-requirement-derived-test-stubs-design.md` | pre-1.0 MINOR · 1.1 | — |
+| FR-037 | Projection expressiveness (`origin.rank`) + field write-access modes (`@mutability`) | ⚪ requirements (pre-design), decisions resolved. **R1/R2 retire registered vocabulary (`@readOnly`), so the breaking half must ride a coordinated pre-1.0 breaking MINOR** — post-1.0 a metamodel-vocabulary break is a 2.0 event (ADR-0035 §1), not a 1.1 minor. `origin.rank` + the rest are additive → 1.1. Design: `docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-10-fr-037-projection-expressiveness-and-write-once-design.md` | 1.0 · 1.1 | — |
+| FR-038 | Requirement-derived test stubs (inverts `@verifiedBy`) | ⚪ proposed. Generate the test from the requirement so the link is structural, not a name the author picks — an audit of one 19-name ledger found 4 names that did not verify their claim. **The `@verifiedBy` retirement is breaking and rides the SAME pre-1.0 MINOR as FR-037's R1/R2, not a second one**; the stub generator is additive → 1.1. Design: `docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-15-fr-038-requirement-derived-test-stubs-design.md` | 1.0 · 1.1 | — |
 
 _(FR-001 was the original metamodel foundation — pre-dates the FR-numbered tracking.)_
 _(FR-032 was developed under the working number "FR-026" — see commit history; renumbered to avoid the FR-026=Forms collision. Design: `docs/superpowers/specs/2026-06-13-fr-032-canonical-fqn-refs-design.md`, ADR-0032.)_
@@ -252,6 +252,13 @@ that retires registered vocabulary. Chartered to ride the next such MINOR:
 - **FR-038** — the `@verifiedBy` retirement, explicitly "the same coordinated pre-1.0 breaking
   slot as FR-037's `@mutability`, not a second one".
 
+**Why not carry the break in the `1.0` cut itself?** `1.0.0` is a MAJOR under semver, so a
+break landing *in* the renumbering is neither a pre-1.0 MINOR nor a 2.0 event — it looks like a
+free slot. It is not: §G3 requires "at least one coordinated release after the last breaking
+move … with **no** metamodel-breaking changes, **to prove the rate has actually dropped**". A
+1.0 that carries a break has had no quiet period at all, so it freezes the vocabulary on the
+strength of a stability claim nothing tested. The gate is about evidence, not arithmetic.
+
 **Cost, stated plainly:** landing any of these resets the §G3 quiet-period clock in
 `docs/1.0-readiness.md` — "at least one coordinated release after the last breaking move with no
 metamodel-breaking changes". So this MINOR pushes the 1.0 renumbering out by at least one
@@ -260,6 +267,13 @@ Group-B entry above: it rides the breaking batch "while 1.0 stays unscheduled",
 scheduled imminently" listed as the reversal trigger). Note that ADR-0035's own §C3 text still
 names `0.15.1` as the last breaking move — stale; `0.21.0` superseded it.
 
+**The open tension, named:** `CLAUDE.md` and the "Before 1.0" section above both say GA is the
+next release move and that nothing outstanding blocks the promotion. This section says a
+breaking MINOR comes first. Those are reconcilable only by deciding which goes first — and
+#210's reversal trigger is the mechanism for deciding it: if 1.0 is scheduled imminently, ship
+the break as documentation-and-rule-of-thumb instead and let the vocabulary changes become 2.0
+work. What is NOT available is targeting the breaking half at `1.1`.
+
 ### 1.1 — Serialization foundation + connected-systems tier
 
 - **FR-024 declared-API surface** — the deferred half of FR-024: `api.base`/`api.operational`,