Should proposals become Ore operations rather than files beside the repository?

Proposals -- these -- live beside the repository as forge records, not inside the history. A replica that syncs a repository gets every operation and none of the proposals. That is the current answer and the contract says so plainly: "Until then, proposals live beside the repository and a replica that syncs gets the history and none of them" (`improve_panel_contract.md` §8). The argument for moving them in is Ore's own: a proposal is a durable, attributable, signed statement about a body of work, which is the shape of every other thing the log holds, and putting it in the log would make it survive the forge, travel by sync, and be readable offline. The argument against is the price of getting it there. It needs new wire vocabulary -- and `ORESEG` and `ORESNP` are versioned with golden-byte tests, so a vocabulary event is a deliberate, costed thing (`import_completeness.md` §6 is what one looks like) -- or it needs a verb. The verb road is the closed one. The budget went from ten to eleven for `ore note` on 2026-08-13, and the raise came with an explicit condition attached to it: it was one-off and specific to `note`, and does not license an eleventh-verb argument for anything else, proposals included. That condition was written down at the time precisely so that this proposal could not be argued as the next exception. What is worth noticing is that the ground has shifted since the question was framed. `Op::Note` already exists at wire code 7, already claims nothing and mints nothing, already resolves through moves and narrows under edits, and is already writable from the command line. A comment on a proposal and an anchored note are not obviously different objects. Whether a proposal is a note that names no content, or something that genuinely needs its own vocabulary, is the question underneath this one and it has not been asked. This is the owner's decision, not either session's, and the contract says so. Transcribed from the project record on 2026-08-14. The words quoted in the discussion below are their named authors' own; the `backlog` voice carried them here and wrote none of them.