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

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

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+# IETF Senior Review
+
+## Findings
+
+### High: the draft is credible, but it still reads more like an architecture note than a standards-ready specification
+
+The structure is sound and the layering is disciplined. What it still lacks is the slight extra formality that makes an Internet-Draft feel publishable: clearer field requirements, fewer conceptual transitions, and less reliance on explanatory prose in Sections 5 through 8.
+
+### Medium: the abstract should emphasize scoped issuer opinion sooner
+
+That point is present later in the document and is central to avoiding misuse. It should appear earlier and more explicitly in the abstract.
+
+### Medium: IANA and references remain intentionally provisional
+
+That is acceptable at this stage, but before circulation beyond an internal drafting loop, the document should either define a tiny initial model registry or clearly state that all model identifiers are profile-specific pending later work.
+
+### Medium: terminology is good, but a few terms could be made more standards-native
+
+Portable Trust Assertion and Local Trust State are useful distinctions, though they currently read slightly informal. Tightening those definitions would improve the document.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Is the intended status Experimental explicitly stated in the draft text anywhere, or only in the cycle metadata?
+- Should the document explicitly note that it does not define trust aggregation across issuers?
+
+## Residual publishability risk
+
+This is a strong first version. The remaining work is mainly to replace architectural vagueness with just enough protocol discipline to withstand IETF-style scrutiny.