PRISM v2.0.1 + Lens v0.10 released

[Ronkupper]

PRISM v2.0.1 + Lens v0.10 released

A focused release-hygiene patch on top of v2.0.0, with a companion Lens schema bump. No architectural changes. No reopening of the v2 design. Substantive items: schema-fidelity bump on the Lens Library, cleanup of the singleton-Lens contradiction across the framework body, restoration of explicit verification status in finding output, and a new §18 Project, feedback, updates so the framework body itself carries discoverability of the project, license, feedback channels, and update path.

Highlights

• Singleton Lens default. PRISM.md is now sufficient as a singleton attachment for normal operation. Standalone Lens is an explicit override only when the project pins to a newer Library version than the embedded copy.
• Prompt hash → Prompt digest. Vendor chats no longer asked to compute SHA-256 (which they can't, in general). Orchestration generates the digest; execution copies it verbatim; orchestration verifies copy-through.
• Verification status restored as an explicit axis. v1.x's [UNVERIFIED] distinction was conflated with low-confidence in v2.0; v2.0.1 restores Verification status: [verified | partially verified | unverified | not found] alongside Confidence: in §4.11. Plus first-class Null results: and Could not verify:.
• verification_basis gating on Lens anchors. Lens v0.10's new verification_basis: schema-introduction-only field stops the silent false-fresh bypass on rubric-anchored entries (LL-D-002 WCAG 2.2; LL-D-005 OWASP ASVS 5.0.0). PRISM §7.4 freshness logic now gates on it.
• Master emission half-step. Always-emit safety property preserved; _no_change filename suffix marks turn-closes where no material state changed. Operator can defer cloud-save on _no_change emissions.
• §18 Project, feedback, updates. New section: project identity, resource fetch URL convention, currency-check protocol at session open, feedback channels, citation. PRISM.md as a singleton attachment now tells the reader where the project lives and how to send observations back.
• VERSION files. VERSION at repo root, lens/VERSION in lens/. Single-line files for cheap currency checks.

What's not in v2.0.1

• Vendor Selection cache (P1-1) — deferred to backlog
• Setup posture (lean | standard | deep) — rejected (would re-introduce v1 Scope Flags by another name)
• Acceptance harness — kept as a working artifact, not folded into the framework body

Full patch list and decision record: see the v2.0.1 release notes.

Provenance

This release was driven by a converged ChatGPT 5.5 Pro review of v2.0.0. The seven P0 items the review surfaced are all resolved or explicitly deferred with rationale. Maintainer qualifications applied where the review's patch shape could be improved (e.g., verification_basis rather than last_verified: null; Master _no_change suffix rather than emit-only-on-change).

How to upgrade

• Skill installation. Replace the prior PRISM.md (or SKILL.md + PRISM_v2_0_0.md) with the new versions from main.
• Active projects on v2.0.0. No state migration required. The Master schema is unchanged. The next session opens against v2.0.1; M2 (Version Drift) will surface the framework version change but the Master itself remains valid.
• Active projects pinned to v0.9 Lens. Continue running pinned. Upgrading to v0.10 is opt-in: re-attach the new standalone Lens, or remove the standalone attachment and rely on the embedded Appendix G.

Resources

• Framework: PRISM.md | snapshot
• Lens: lens/PRISM_lens_library.md | snapshot
• Releases: v2.0.1 | Lens v0.10
• Version stamps: framework | lens

Calibration ask

The first real v2.0.1 audit is the post-release shakedown. If you run PRISM against a live project, items worth reporting back:

• Singleton-Lens default: did you reach for the standalone Lens out of habit, or did the embedded Appendix G work cleanly?
• Master _no_change marker: did it reduce file-management churn, or did it confuse cloud-save flow?
• §18.3 currency-check: did orchestration surface the version flag correctly across substrates, or does the protocol need refinement?
• Verification status: did vendor outputs carry the new field correctly, or did it collapse back into low-confidence?

Drop observations in Ideas or Show and tell. Bugs in Issues. Questions in Q&A.