feat: add draft data, gap analysis report, and workspace config

workspace/draft-team/cycles/dynamic-trust-and-reputation/50-reviews-v1/architecture.md

@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+# Architecture Review
+
+## Findings
+
+### Medium: scope discipline is good, but the draft risks under-specifying the portable core
+
+The draft correctly avoids becoming a universal reputation system. The remaining risk is that so much is left to local policy that the portable assertion core becomes too thin. The architecture should define a firmer minimum portable envelope.
+
+### Medium: the trust-event object may be more than the first revision needs
+
+The draft has both trust events and trust assertions. That layering is sensible, but the architecture should say more directly whether trust-event interoperability is a primary goal or merely a feeder model for assertions. Otherwise readers may assume both layers are equally mature.
+
+### Medium: revocation and supersession deserve a cleaner conceptual split
+
+The draft treats revocation as withdrawal or supersession, but those are not always the same. One invalidates a prior assertion; the other replaces it with a newer one. This distinction should be sharper.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Is the first implementable milestone portable assertions only, with trust events described as optional supporting input?
+- Should revocation be kept as a general umbrella term or split explicitly into revoke and supersede actions?
+
+## Residual risk
+
+The document has good boundaries. The main architectural risk is not scope creep but insufficient commitment to a concrete portable core.