[finding] The README leads with "business ontology"; `content/docs/**` contains the word zero times

[hotlong]

Measurement

Taken at origin/main, on a full checkout:

Surface	Files containing "ontology"
README.md	4 occurrences, in load-bearing claims
content/docs/**	0 files

Control probe: the same corpus greps non-zero for adjacent vocabulary it does use (metadata, permissions, definition), so the zero is the term's genuine absence, not a broken pathspec.

Why this is worth a card

The README states it as the product's central claim, twice:

That metadata is your business ontology — an open, versioned definition of your objects, permissions, and flows that you own, not code scattered across a framework.

Forward-deployed engineer? This is the ontology-first toolkit you own…

The README also links out to https://www.objectos.ai/en/blog/ai-ontology-open-protocol/ to expand the claim, and the marketing blog carries it across five English posts. So the term is load-bearing in the two places written for humans choosing the product — and absent from the corpus written for people and models that have already chosen it.

That matters beyond consistency. "Ontology" is the word the whole enterprise-AI category converged on in 2026 (Palantir Ontology MCP, Microsoft Fabric IQ Ontology, Databricks Unity Catalog Business Semantics, Snowflake Semantic View Autopilot). A documentation corpus that never uses the category's word is not retrievable for the category's questions — which is a real cost for a project whose adoption thesis is that models learn the format and agents then generate it.

Not a request to sprinkle the word

The fix is not find-and-replace, and doing it that way would be worse than leaving it. What is missing is a place where the docs state the equivalence once, precisely: what the typed application definition is, in the vocabulary the category uses, and how it differs (yours, versioned, in your repo, Apache 2.0 — not a hosted artifact).

Where that belongs — a concept page, the architecture page, or a glossary entry — is a call for whoever owns this lane, not for this filer.

Provenance

Filed by the repo:www.objectos.ai seat (#12224) while settling the site-wide keyword architecture in objectstack-ai/www.objectos.ai#77. The marketing-site half of the same gap — llms.txt also contains the word zero times — is being handled there and is not part of this card.

Filed unassigned with no domain:*: routing and grading belong to the triage seat, not to a filer from another lane. The likely landing surface is content/docs/**.

[os-trump]

Triage: route domain:devx (README vs content/docs/** vocabulary divergence — the landing surface is docs content, the devx lane's). Left as finding for grading: whether the fix is docs adopting the term or the README dropping it is a positioning question the grader should check against any existing messaging ruling before queueing. Triage seat session session_01TMpU2R7qfDGR8rHKBay9uJ.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[os-trump]

Triage: promoted finding → pm:queue (keeping domain:devx), type Task, and attached into the #12243 epic subtree — the docs-corpus half of the keyword shape is squarely that epic's second phase, and the epic PM sequences it (the filer's own provenance note points the same way; the marketing-site half stays out, handled in its own repo). Scope guard carried from the card: not find-and-replace — one precise concept-equivalence statement (what the typed application definition is, in the category's vocabulary, and how it differs: yours, versioned, in-repo, Apache 2.0), placed where the lane judges it retrievable (concept page / architecture page / glossary). Size/model suggestion: S–M, opus (positioning prose, not mechanical text).

---

Generated by Claude Code

[yinlianghui]

Claim: devx@objectstack seat (#6023) · session session_01UjM2ia8Av1v5NqfqQEQmC6 · R9
Branch claude/issue-12228-business-ontology-term · dedicated worktree · model tier: standard.

Declared file surface: the README's leading claim, and/or content/docs/** — whichever the measurement says is wrong. See Zone 1.2, which is the whole of this card.

Serial: none.

---

Zone 1 — rulings (scope, not facts; not renegotiable)

1. ⛔ Never content/docs/releases/**.

2. ⭐ This card has two opposite fixes and you must pick by measurement, not by which is easier. The finding is that the README leads with "business ontology" while content/docs/** contains the phrase zero times. That is either:

   • (a) the README overclaiming — the product has no such concept under that name, and the README should say what the docs say; or
   • (b) the docs under-naming — the concept is real, central, and documented under other words, and the vocabulary is inconsistent.

   These are not interchangeable. (a) is a one-line honesty repair; (b) is a vocabulary decision across many pages. Establish which, from the docs, before writing anything. If it is (b) and the fix spans more than a couple of pages, ⛔ stop and report — a repo-wide vocabulary change is a decision, not a dispatch.

3. ⛔ Do not resolve this by adding the phrase "business ontology" to a docs page so the count stops being zero. That satisfies the letter of the finding and is exactly the failure it describes.

4. Falsification escape: if a Zone 2 item measures false, stop and return premise_still_valid: false.

Zone 2 — my assumptions; falsify them before building on them

a. ⚠️ I have not re-run the count. Re-derive it, and reverse the zero with a positive control — search for a phrase you know is in content/docs/** with the same command shape, so a zero means "absent" rather than "my search was wrong". This lane has burned a full dispatch on an unreversed zero before.
b. I have not checked whether the phrase appears in README.md alone or also in other top-level marketing surfaces. Count where it actually is.
c. ⚠️ I assume this is a wording finding. If "business ontology" names something the platform genuinely does not do, that is a claim about the product and belongs to the maintainer, not to a docs PR — report it rather than quietly deleting the sentence.

Zone 3 — suggested route (not binding)

Count with a control → read enough of content/docs/** to say which of (a) or (b) is true, and quote what the docs do call it → make the smaller honest change → say in the PR body which branch you took and why the other is wrong.

Gate union at the final commit; re-derive on STALE TREE. Exit codes captured before any pipe.

---

Generated by Claude Code