What should the working group do to lower adoption costs of the other recommendations?

A subsidiary question under Q-0008. R1-R6 each carry an adoption cost that declines as reference implementations accumulate. Q-0018 asks how that decline gets engineered.

The answer is R7 (C-0046): publish, under open licensing, reference deployment configurations for each protocol node class identified in §7.3, audit templates for R1, cost models calibrated to the M-0003 formula, and case studies documenting institutional deployments. Update the material as the working group collects additional evidence.

R7 is the meta-recommendation: each of R1-R6 has lower adoption cost when others before it have published their work. Software Heritage, CLOCKSS, the Forgejo and IPFS reference deployments, and the existing university Matrix and Tor deployments demonstrate that well-documented reference material substantially accelerates subsequent adoption. The SciOS working group is the natural convener of this material; publication under open licensing ensures that the material is not itself exposed to the §3 failure modes.

The discourse-graph publication of this paper itself is one such reference deployment — a working example of content-addressed, distributed, forkable scientific publishing that the working group is producing as part of this same recommendation.