v0.3.0: Gap-to-Draft pipeline, Living Standards Observatory, blog series

Gap-to-Draft Pipeline (ietf pipeline):
- Context builder assembles ideas, RFC foundations, similar drafts, ecosystem vision
- Generator produces outlines + sections using rich context with Claude
- Quality gates: novelty (embedding similarity), references, format, self-rating
- Family coordinator generates 5-draft ecosystem (AEM/ATD/HITL/AEPB/APAE)
- I-D formatter with proper headers, references, 72-char wrapping

Living Standards Observatory (ietf observatory):
- Source abstraction with IETF + W3C fetchers
- 7-step update pipeline: snapshot, fetch, analyze, embed, ideas, gaps, record
- Static GitHub Pages dashboard (explorer, gap tracker, timeline)
- Weekly CI/CD automation via GitHub Actions

Also includes:
- 361 drafts (expanded from 260 with 6 new keywords), 403 authors, 1,262 ideas, 12 gaps
- Blog series (8 posts planned), reports, arXiv paper figures
- Agent team infrastructure (CLAUDE.md, scripts, dev journal)
- 5 new DB tables, schema migration, ~15 new query methods

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

README.md

@@ -139,7 +139,42 @@ score = 0.30 * novelty + 0.25 * relevance + 0.20 * maturity + 0.15 * momentum +
 - **Safety deficit**: AI safety proposals (36) are vastly outnumbered by protocol proposals (290+)
 - **Organizational concentration**: Top 5 orgs contribute ~35% of all drafts
 - **1,262 technical ideas** extracted across 6 types (mechanism, architecture, protocol, pattern, extension, requirement)
-- **12 identified gaps** in the current landscape
+- **12 identified gaps** in the current landscape (3 critical, 6 high, 3 medium)
+
+## Gap Analysis
+
+Claude-powered gap analysis identifies 12 under-addressed areas across the 260-draft landscape. Each gap is cross-referenced with the drafts and ideas that partially touch on the topic, highlighting where effort is concentrated and where it's missing.
+
+### Critical Gaps
+
+| # | Gap | Category | Drafts in Category | Key Issue |
+|--:|-----|----------|-------------------:|-----------|
+| 1 | **Agent Resource Management** | Autonomous netops | 60 | No framework for scheduling, quotas, or fair allocation when agents compete for compute, memory, and bandwidth. Drafts focus on communication but ignore resource contention in multi-agent environments. |
+| 2 | **Agent Behavior Verification** | AI safety/alignment | 36 | No runtime mechanisms to verify that deployed agents actually behave according to declared policies. Gap between stated capabilities and observed behavior. Closest work: `draft-birkholz-verifiable-agent-conversations` (attestation), `draft-aylward-daap-v2` (accountability). |
+| 3 | **Agent Error Recovery & Rollback** | Autonomous netops | 60 | Missing standards for cascading failure recovery and rollback of autonomous decisions. Only `draft-yue-anima-agent-recovery-networks` specifically addresses recovery; `draft-srijal-agents-policy` touches mandatory failure behavior. |
+
+### High-Severity Gaps
+
+| # | Gap | Category | Drafts in Category | Key Issue |
+|--:|-----|----------|-------------------:|-----------|
+| 4 | **Cross-Protocol Translation** | A2A protocols | 92 | 92 competing A2A protocol drafts with high overlap but no universal translation layer or negotiation mechanism for interoperability between them. |
+| 5 | **Agent Lifecycle Management** | Agent discovery/reg | 57 | Registration and discovery are covered but no standards for agent versioning, updates, graceful shutdown, or retirement without disrupting dependent services. |
+| 6 | **Multi-Agent Consensus** | A2A protocols | 92 | No framework for groups of agents to reach consensus on conflicting decisions. Closest: `draft-li-dmsc-inf-architecture` (DMSC protocol), `draft-takagi-srta-trinity` (SRTA architecture). |
+| 7 | **Human Override & Intervention** | Human-agent interaction | 22 | Only 22 drafts (vs 60 autonomous netops) address human-agent interaction. No emergency override protocols. Best effort: `draft-irtf-nmrg-llm-nm` (human-in-the-loop framework). |
+| 8 | **Cross-Domain Security Boundaries** | Agent identity/auth | 98 | Missing frameworks for agents operating across security domains with different trust levels. `draft-diaconu-agents-authz-info-sharing` and `draft-cui-dmsc-agent-cdi` are early attempts but lack enforcement mechanisms. |
+| 9 | **Dynamic Trust & Reputation** | Agent identity/auth | 98 | Static certificate-based auth is insufficient for long-running autonomous systems. No dynamic trust scoring or reputation tracking. Closest: `draft-cosmos-protocol-specification` (trust scoring), `draft-jiang-seat-dynamic-attestation`. |
+
+### Medium-Severity Gaps
+
+| # | Gap | Category | Drafts in Category | Key Issue |
+|--:|-----|----------|-------------------:|-----------|
+| 10 | **Agent Performance Monitoring** | Autonomous netops | 60 | No standardized metrics, SLOs, or observability framework for production agent deployments. `draft-fu-nmop-agent-communication-framework` mentions monitoring but doesn't define standards. |
+| 11 | **Agent Explainability** | AI safety/alignment | 36 | No protocols for agents to explain decisions to other agents or humans. Critical for debugging and regulatory compliance. Only 36 safety drafts total. |
+| 12 | **Agent Data Provenance** | Data formats/interop | 102 | No standards for tracking data lineage as information flows between agents. 102 data format drafts but none address provenance tracking. |
+
+### Gap Coverage Ratio
+
+The safety deficit is the most striking finding — only **12.3%** of categorized drafts (36/292) address AI safety/alignment, while 92 focus on A2A protocols and 60 on autonomous operations. The ratio of "how to do things" to "how to do things safely" is roughly **7:1**.
 
 ## Tech Stack