feat: une cible annoncee mais pas encore ecrite a desormais sa categorie

.project/rules/nextgraph/no-divergence-from-nextgraph.md

@@ -35,18 +35,23 @@ When a divergence is genuinely unavoidable it must be **deliberate, documented a
 
 ## Every symbol says where it comes from
 
-Answering *does the target do this?* once, in conversation, does not survive the week. So each symbol carries its own provenance, beside the code rather than in a document that drifts: the **level** that answers (1 the engine, 2 the binding, 3 the ORM), the upstream `path:symbol` it aligns on, and one of five kinds.
+Answering *does the target do this?* once, in conversation, does not survive the week. So each symbol carries its own provenance, beside the code rather than in a document that drifts: the **level** that answers (1 the engine, 2 the binding, 3 the ORM), the `path:symbol` it cites — a symbol in `nextgraph-rs`, or, for the one kind that has nothing upstream to cite, the record in this working copy — and one kind from a closed set.
 
 | kind | meaning |
 |---|---|
 | `passthrough` | upstream's own symbol, same name and shape |
 | `aligned` | our name or ergonomics, upstream's semantics and model |
 | `declared-not-wired` | upstream **defines** the shape; nothing constructs it yet; we implement it |
+| `announced-not-written` | upstream's developers have **stated** this is the direction; nothing in the tree carries it — not a definition, not even a name |
 | `reserved-name` | upstream has declared a NAME with no shape behind it — it binds nothing, so building on it is a bet |
 | `invention` | nothing at any level answers — a deliberate, documented bet |
 | `divergent` | upstream does this, and we do it differently |
 
-A test requires the annotation on every published symbol; it cannot check that the citation is *true*, and that is fine — a citation is refutable by a reader in seconds, prose is not. The classification also applies to unpublished code that **claims to resemble the target**: the mistake this section exists for was made on an internal function, and being unexported protected nobody.
+A test requires the annotation on every published symbol; it cannot check that the citation is *true*, and that is fine — a citation is refutable by a reader in seconds, prose is not. It does check that the citation still **resolves**, which a reader cannot: into `nextgraph-rs` when that sibling checkout is present — absent, it asks nothing rather than going red for a reason that would only teach people to skip the suite — and into this working copy always, for the one kind whose record lives here. The classification also applies to unpublished code that **claims to resemble the target**: the mistake this section exists for was made on an internal function, and being unexported protected nobody.
+
+**An announced target has no file to cite, and that is not a reason to call it ours.** `announced-not-written` covers the case the other kinds leave out: the developers have said what the direction is, and the tree carries nothing yet — no definition, not even a name. It is the **strongest** justification available there, because deviating *toward* what the target has announced is alignment, and it is the rest of the surface that will have to catch up. The two moves it replaces are both bad: citing an approximate symbol, which is the `readUnion` failure — a true citation attached to a false claim — or declaring `invention`, which understates the alignment and tells a later reader the shape is ours to change when it is not.
+
+Being the strongest, it is the **hardest to assert**. It names **who** stated it and **when** (`announced-by=<who>@<YYYY-MM-DD>`), and its `ref` is not a symbol upstream — there is none — but the **document in this working copy where the statement is on record**, plus the announced name it is on record for. That record is prose and may never be one of our own source files: our code standing as the evidence for its own shape is a circle, and the circle would wear the strongest label in the set. An announcement nobody wrote down is hearsay, and hearsay is exactly how *"every document has a native inbox"* became an implementation before anyone checked it. The date is there to be weighed: a direction announced long ago and still unwritten is worth less than one stated last week, and without a date nobody can tell the two apart.
 
 **A reserved name is not a declared shape, and the gap between them is the whole point.** `declared-not-wired` is strong *because the shape constrains us*: implementing it is realising something the target wrote down. A name with nothing behind it constrains nothing, so what we build under it is our own invention wearing the target's vocabulary — the most dangerous kind, because the borrowed name makes it read as alignment.