docs: surface public routing discussion

Author: kmishra1204

README.md

@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ Use these starter artifacts:
 - [Route signal response protocol](docs/ROUTE_SIGNAL_RESPONSE_PROTOCOL.md)
 - [Route signal ledger](docs/ROUTE_SIGNAL_LEDGER.md)
 - [Route signal issue template](.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/route_signal.md)
+- [Public discussion](https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/discussions/3)
 - Route-signal labels: `route-signal`, `agents-md`, `mcp`, `agentgateway`, `goose`, `route-independent`, `signal-too-heavy`, `signal-no-fit`
 - [Maintainer review kit](docs/MAINTAINER_REVIEW_KIT.md)
 - [Maintainer growth policy](docs/MAINTAINER_GROWTH_POLICY.md)
@@ -148,6 +149,8 @@ Use the [route signal response protocol](docs/ROUTE_SIGNAL_RESPONSE_PROTOCOL.md)
 
 Use the [route signal ledger](docs/ROUTE_SIGNAL_LEDGER.md) to inspect public route signals and response states. No external route signals are recorded yet.
 
+Use the [public discussion](https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/discussions/3) when the feedback is broader than one route signal but still technical and non-promotional.
+
 ## Use In Public Forums
 
 Good use:
@@ -167,8 +170,8 @@ Bad use:
 
 ## Current Status
 
-Version: `0.5.40`
+Version: `0.5.41`
 
-Status: early OSS profile with a 16-repository public testbed, pinned good-first-review issue, reviewer quickstart, review signal matrix, route-signal response protocol, route-signal ledger, reviewer acknowledgement policy, refreshed route-signal intake template and labels, adopter guide, boundary template, scoring guide, ecosystem alignment brief, compatibility policy, adoption registry, external review guide, external reviewer program, public review packet, maintainer review kit, AAIF proposal readiness self-audit, AAIF project proposal preflight dossier, AAIF engagement dossier, external review and adoption operating queue, ecosystem contribution ledger, contribution monitoring protocol, AAIF Observability trace-model planning evidence, Accuracy & Reliability, Agentic Commerce, Governance/Risk, Identity & Trust, Observability & Traceability, Security & Privacy, and Workflows taxonomy candidate-term evidence, security posture plan, static docs portal, and community engagement plan.
+Status: early OSS profile with a 16-repository public testbed, pinned good-first-review issue, refreshed public discussion, reviewer quickstart, review signal matrix, route-signal response protocol, route-signal ledger, reviewer acknowledgement policy, refreshed route-signal intake template and labels, adopter guide, boundary template, scoring guide, ecosystem alignment brief, compatibility policy, adoption registry, external review guide, external reviewer program, public review packet, maintainer review kit, AAIF proposal readiness self-audit, AAIF project proposal preflight dossier, AAIF engagement dossier, external review and adoption operating queue, ecosystem contribution ledger, contribution monitoring protocol, AAIF Observability trace-model planning evidence, Accuracy & Reliability, Agentic Commerce, Governance/Risk, Identity & Trust, Observability & Traceability, Security & Privacy, and Workflows taxonomy candidate-term evidence, security posture plan, static docs portal, and community engagement plan.
 
 Next target: external technical feedback from agentic AI maintainers and AAIF/LF-style community forums.

ROADMAP.md

@@ -217,6 +217,11 @@
 - Refresh the route-signal issue template with first-review context links, A2A/interoperability routing, one-sentence response shape, anti-claim checks, and public acknowledgement consent.
 - Update the public review packet release link so outside reviewers land on the current release surface.
 
+## 0.5.41
+
+- Refresh the public routing discussion so it points to the current release, pinned review issue, route-signal template, A2A/interoperability routing, and anti-endorsement boundary.
+- Link the public discussion from README, public review packet, and docs portal as the broader technical-feedback path beside the one-signal issue.
+
 ## 0.6.0
 
 - Add first external adoption example if a maintainer opts in.

docs/PUBLIC_REVIEW_PACKET.md

@@ -14,8 +14,9 @@ This is an independent OSS profile. It is not an Agentic AI Foundation project,
 | --- | --- |
 | Repository | https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile |
 | Docs portal | https://kmishra1204.github.io/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/ |
-| Current release | https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/releases/tag/v0.5.40 |
+| Current release | https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/releases/tag/v0.5.41 |
 | Pinned good-first review issue | https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/issues/7 |
+| Public routing discussion | https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/discussions/3 |
 | Focused review issue | https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/issues/4 |
 | Adoption trial issue | https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/issues/5 |
 | External reviewer call | https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/issues/6 |
@@ -49,6 +50,7 @@ The fastest public entry point is the pinned good-first review issue:
 | --- | --- | --- |
 | AGENTS.md | templates and example repositories | Are agent instructions specific enough for safe contribution? |
 | MCP/tooling | boundary model examples | Are tool actions, side effects, and approval points clear? |
+| A2A/interoperability | readiness examples and boundary models | Would this help show conformance, compatibility, and cross-agent evidence? |
 | Agent gateway | gateway and policy evidence | Would this help explain policy, routing, and observability needs? |
 | Security | SECURITY.md, security posture, release checklist | Are the secret, reporting, and supply-chain boundaries credible? |
 | Enterprise adoption | profile levels and testbed examples | Is this too heavy, too light, or useful for due diligence? |
@@ -79,7 +81,7 @@ The fastest public entry point is the pinned good-first review issue:
 
 1. What should be removed because it is too heavy for normal OSS maintainers?
 2. Which field or document would make a real repository review easier?
-3. Should this stay independent, align with AGENTS.md guidance, support MCP/server readiness, or become an agent gateway governance example?
+3. Should this stay independent, align with AGENTS.md guidance, support MCP/server readiness, help A2A/interoperability evidence, or become an agent gateway governance example?
 
 ## Copy-Ready Forum Ask
 
@@ -97,9 +99,15 @@ https://kmishra1204.github.io/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/
 The AAIF engagement dossier is here:
 https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/blob/main/docs/AAIF_ENGAGEMENT_DOSSIER.md
 
+The pinned one-signal issue is here:
+https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/issues/7
+
+The public routing discussion is here:
+https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/discussions/3
+
 The profile now has 16 repo-local boundary examples across coding, workflow, support, access, voice, meetings, commerce, finance, generation, brand operations, identity, knowledge, collaboration, live operations, learning, and portfolio governance domains.
 
-I am trying to understand whether this is useful beside AGENTS.md guidance, MCP/server readiness, agent gateway governance use cases, or whether it should stay independent. If there is a better existing effort, I would rather align than create another checklist.
+I am trying to understand whether this is useful beside AGENTS.md guidance, MCP/server readiness, A2A/interoperability evidence, agent gateway governance use cases, Goose/developer-workflow setup evidence, or whether it should stay independent. If there is a better existing effort, I would rather align than create another checklist.
 ```
 
 ## What Feedback Can Change

package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile",
-  "version": "0.5.40",
+  "version": "0.5.41",
   "private": false,
   "type": "module",
   "description": "Evidence-first readiness profile for agentic AI repositories.",

site/index.html

@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ <h1>Make agentic AI repositories easier to review, trust, and extend.</h1>
           <img class="readiness-flow" src="./assets/readiness-flow.svg" alt="Five connected readiness levels from scaffold to foundation candidate.">
           <div class="signal-row">
             <span>Current release</span>
-            <strong>v0.5.40</strong>
+            <strong>v0.5.41</strong>
           </div>
           <div class="signal-row">
             <span>Validation</span>
@@ -105,6 +105,10 @@ <h2>Use it without needing a paid provider or private data.</h2>
             <strong>Start small.</strong>
             Use the pinned good-first review issue or route-signal template to leave one route signal.
           </li>
+          <li>
+            <strong>Discuss routing.</strong>
+            Use the public discussion for broader AGENTS.md, MCP, A2A, gateway, Goose, or independent-profile feedback.
+          </li>
           <li>
             <strong>Close the loop.</strong>
             Classify incoming feedback through the route signal response protocol.
@@ -201,6 +205,10 @@ <h2>Start from the artifacts reviewers usually ask for first.</h2>
             <span>Pinned Issue</span>
             <strong>Good First Review</strong>
           </a>
+          <a href="https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/discussions/3">
+            <span>Public Discussion</span>
+            <strong>Routing Feedback</strong>
+          </a>
           <a href="https://github.com/kmishra1204/agentic-enterprise-readiness-profile/blob/main/docs/MAINTAINER_REVIEW_KIT.md">
             <span>Maintainers</span>
             <strong>Review Kit</strong>