Position TTP as trustworthiness protocol

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+name: Bug report
+description: Report incorrect protocol, parser, evaluator, schema, or documentation behavior.
+title: "[Bug report] "
+labels: []
+body:
+- type: markdown
+  attributes:
+    value: |
+      Explain the trustworthiness boundary. TTP establishes trustworthiness before downstream authority and execution decisions.
+- type: textarea
+  id: actor
+  attributes:
+    label: What actor or system is being evaluated?
+    description: Identify the AI agent, copilot, workflow, pipeline, API client, service account, MSP/MSSP operator, or other non-human identity.
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: trustworthiness-question
+  attributes:
+    label: Trustworthiness question
+    description: What question must TTP answer before downstream authority or execution?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: evidence
+  attributes:
+    label: Evidence and attestation
+    description: What trust evidence exists, what attestation is required, and what can decay?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: proof
+  attributes:
+    label: Proof result
+    description: What TrustProof, RuntimeDecision context, or ExecutionReceipt evidence should result?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: downstream
+  attributes:
+    label: Downstream reliance
+    description: What authority system, gateway, CI gate, Runtime Authority Gate, RAP service, or Execution Exchange path may consume the proof?
+  validations:
+    required: true

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/commercial_boundary_question.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+name: Commercial boundary question
+description: Ask whether a capability belongs in the open protocol or BlockSiFr commercial enforcement layer.
+title: "[Commercial boundary question] "
+labels: []
+body:
+- type: markdown
+  attributes:
+    value: |
+      Explain the trustworthiness boundary. TTP establishes trustworthiness before downstream authority and execution decisions.
+- type: textarea
+  id: actor
+  attributes:
+    label: What actor or system is being evaluated?
+    description: Identify the AI agent, copilot, workflow, pipeline, API client, service account, MSP/MSSP operator, or other non-human identity.
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: trustworthiness-question
+  attributes:
+    label: Trustworthiness question
+    description: What question must TTP answer before downstream authority or execution?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: evidence
+  attributes:
+    label: Evidence and attestation
+    description: What trust evidence exists, what attestation is required, and what can decay?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: proof
+  attributes:
+    label: Proof result
+    description: What TrustProof, RuntimeDecision context, or ExecutionReceipt evidence should result?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: downstream
+  attributes:
+    label: Downstream reliance
+    description: What authority system, gateway, CI gate, Runtime Authority Gate, RAP service, or Execution Exchange path may consume the proof?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: dropdown
+  id: commercial-touch
+  attributes:
+    label: Does this touch commercial BlockSiFr capabilities?
+    options:
+      - "No"
+      - "Yes"
+      - "Unsure"
+  validations:
+    required: true

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+name: Feature request
+description: Request an open protocol feature for trustworthiness establishment.
+title: "[Feature request] "
+labels: []
+body:
+- type: markdown
+  attributes:
+    value: |
+      Explain the trustworthiness boundary. TTP establishes trustworthiness before downstream authority and execution decisions.
+- type: textarea
+  id: actor
+  attributes:
+    label: What actor or system is being evaluated?
+    description: Identify the AI agent, copilot, workflow, pipeline, API client, service account, MSP/MSSP operator, or other non-human identity.
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: trustworthiness-question
+  attributes:
+    label: Trustworthiness question
+    description: What question must TTP answer before downstream authority or execution?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: evidence
+  attributes:
+    label: Evidence and attestation
+    description: What trust evidence exists, what attestation is required, and what can decay?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: proof
+  attributes:
+    label: Proof result
+    description: What TrustProof, RuntimeDecision context, or ExecutionReceipt evidence should result?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: downstream
+  attributes:
+    label: Downstream reliance
+    description: What authority system, gateway, CI gate, Runtime Authority Gate, RAP service, or Execution Exchange path may consume the proof?
+  validations:
+    required: true

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/integration_request.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+name: Integration request
+description: Request an integration path for an agent runtime, API, CI/CD gate, or MSP/MSSP workflow.
+title: "[Integration request] "
+labels: []
+body:
+- type: markdown
+  attributes:
+    value: |
+      Explain the trustworthiness boundary. TTP establishes trustworthiness before downstream authority and execution decisions.
+- type: textarea
+  id: actor
+  attributes:
+    label: What actor or system is being evaluated?
+    description: Identify the AI agent, copilot, workflow, pipeline, API client, service account, MSP/MSSP operator, or other non-human identity.
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: trustworthiness-question
+  attributes:
+    label: Trustworthiness question
+    description: What question must TTP answer before downstream authority or execution?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: evidence
+  attributes:
+    label: Evidence and attestation
+    description: What trust evidence exists, what attestation is required, and what can decay?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: proof
+  attributes:
+    label: Proof result
+    description: What TrustProof, RuntimeDecision context, or ExecutionReceipt evidence should result?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: downstream
+  attributes:
+    label: Downstream reliance
+    description: What authority system, gateway, CI gate, Runtime Authority Gate, RAP service, or Execution Exchange path may consume the proof?
+  validations:
+    required: true

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/rfc_proposal.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+name: RFC proposal
+description: Propose a protocol change through the TTP RFC process.
+title: "[RFC] "
+labels: ["rfc"]
+body:
+- type: textarea
+  id: actor
+  attributes:
+    label: What actor is being evaluated?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: question
+  attributes:
+    label: What trustworthiness question is being answered?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: evidence
+  attributes:
+    label: What evidence is available?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: attestation
+  attributes:
+    label: What attestation is required?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: decay
+  attributes:
+    label: What trust condition decays?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: proof
+  attributes:
+    label: What proof should result?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: downstream
+  attributes:
+    label: What downstream authority or enforcement system may consume the result?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: dropdown
+  id: commercial
+  attributes:
+    label: Does this proposal touch commercial BlockSiFr capabilities?
+    options:
+      - "No"
+      - "Yes"
+      - "Unsure"
+  validations:
+    required: true

.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/security_question.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+name: Security question
+description: Ask about TTP security posture, proof freshness, decay, issuer validation, or downstream reliance.
+title: "[Security question] "
+labels: []
+body:
+- type: markdown
+  attributes:
+    value: |
+      Explain the trustworthiness boundary. TTP establishes trustworthiness before downstream authority and execution decisions.
+- type: textarea
+  id: actor
+  attributes:
+    label: What actor or system is being evaluated?
+    description: Identify the AI agent, copilot, workflow, pipeline, API client, service account, MSP/MSSP operator, or other non-human identity.
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: trustworthiness-question
+  attributes:
+    label: Trustworthiness question
+    description: What question must TTP answer before downstream authority or execution?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: evidence
+  attributes:
+    label: Evidence and attestation
+    description: What trust evidence exists, what attestation is required, and what can decay?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: proof
+  attributes:
+    label: Proof result
+    description: What TrustProof, RuntimeDecision context, or ExecutionReceipt evidence should result?
+  validations:
+    required: true
+- type: textarea
+  id: downstream
+  attributes:
+    label: Downstream reliance
+    description: What authority system, gateway, CI gate, Runtime Authority Gate, RAP service, or Execution Exchange path may consume the proof?
+  validations:
+    required: true