PointSav platform — architectural overview
fix(architecture): add dated Correction callouts to 13 of 28 architecture/ articles, verified against canonical origin/main — repeated Apache-2.0-for-core-OSes license error (3 articles), fictional os-orchestration-graph design (already shipped differently), doctrine document citing a source that doesn't contain it (internally contradictory 52-vs-54 claim count), fabricated marketplace pricing, wrong Tier A model size contradicting sibling article, 4-tier pairing model repeating the how-to/ systemic defect; 11 verified clean, 4 already self-corrected
@@ -45,6 +45,8 @@ The platform is built on six foundational commitments that take precedence over ## The Fifty-Two Leapfrog Claims **Correction (2026-08-02, verified against canonical `origin/main`):** two issues. (1) This heading says "Fifty-Two" but the body text below says "54 numbered structural claims" — an internal contradiction within this same article, and inconsistent with the sibling article `foundry-doctrine-overview.md`, which consistently says fifty-two throughout. (2) The claim that "the authoritative text is available via the `pointsav/factory-release-engineering` repository" doesn't check out — that repo's real content (confirmed via commit log and full-text search) is purely license/legal-governance tooling (LICENSE-MATRIX, CLA, SPDX headers, license-propagation scripts); no doctrine/charter document, "six pillars," "leapfrog claims," or "cross-industry inventions" text exists anywhere in it. **Flagged, not resolved** — needs a real source located (or the citation removed) and the 52-vs-54 contradiction resolved. The doctrine enumerates 54 numbered structural claims that together constitute the platform's competitive positioning relative to hyperscaler software-as-a-service. Each claim identifies a structural property of the platform substrate that hyperscaler economics or architecture structurally foreclose — not a feature advantage, but a property that cannot be replicated without changing the underlying business model. Representative clusters from the full claim set: