Defines how implementation changes become MiRust documentation without copying executable artifacts or allowing stale source observations to appear current.
Implementation evidence: this topic is grounded in the reviewed GGUF.MiRust.com source snapshot. It documents observed code and artifacts without claiming broad deployment, model quality, or production readiness.
Intake record
Record archive name, SHA-256, normalized tree hash, source revision, owner, UTC receipt, file inventory, and trust classification.
Diff review
Compare crate graph, exported ABI, format constants, parser contracts, model inventory, manifests, tests, browser routes, and known limitations against the prior snapshot.
Site update
Update implementation page, documentation topics, artifact profiles, source audit, roadmap, risk register, release notes, validation fixtures, and UAI durable memory. Every claim must name the source snapshot it describes.
Boundary
Rust, WASM, model, and other executable bytes stay outside the WordPress package. The site carries hashes and summaries, not implementation payloads.
Scope
This starter page defines the questions, boundaries, evidence, and failure modes that should be recorded before a capability is presented as supported.
Engineering considerations
- Identify the source, version, target environment, and owner.
- Separate observed values from estimates and externally reported values.
- Record trade-offs, unsupported cases, and fallback behavior.
- Link performance statements to a compatible benchmark methodology.
Verification questions
- What exact artifact, revision, backend, and environment were reviewed?
- Which assumptions could change the result?
- Which data should be retained so another engineer can reproduce the conclusion?