Clarify project positioning and evidence scope in both READMEs - #25
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The READMEs mixed prototype naming history and research notes with the project's public technical positioning. The Chinese version also still described the delivered Harbor research integration as future work.
Reorganize both languages around project scope, research basis and evidence boundaries. Remove commercial news and first-person direction judgments from the README, retain naming history through the migration guide, and align the Harbor scope with the recorded pilot documentation.
Validation: both READMEs rendered through GitHub's Markdown API; local link targets and heading structure checked; git diff --check passed. Only three Markdown files change.