Context
protocol-core/group-messaging.md, "Message retention" (lines 81-82):
"When retention is disabled, callers cannot force retention data onto the group message envelope. The sender removes or replaces retention data so the on-wire behavior is determined by group state."
Defect
protocol-core/AGENTS.md (line 25) states: "NO local implementation names: no module, queue, database, or API names. Those belong in ../implementation-model.md." A repo grep for "caller"/"callers" shows the term is otherwise confined to implementation-model.md (where it's expected) and one instance in app-components/README.md; group-messaging.md is the only protocol-core doc using it. "Callers" is API-invocation language describing a local function-call boundary between application code and a client library, not a protocol role — the surrounding vocabulary elsewhere in this same document for this actor is "the sender" or "a client," and indeed the very next sentence in this same paragraph uses "the sender."
Failure scenario
Low direct interop risk since the surrounding sentence is redundant with "the sender..."; this is primarily a spec-hygiene/surface-boundary violation flagged by the directory's own verification rules.
Suggested fix
Replace "callers" with "the sender" or "a client" to match the surrounding paragraph's vocabulary.
Context
protocol-core/group-messaging.md, "Message retention" (lines 81-82):Defect
protocol-core/AGENTS.md(line 25) states: "NO local implementation names: no module, queue, database, or API names. Those belong in../implementation-model.md." A repo grep for "caller"/"callers" shows the term is otherwise confined toimplementation-model.md(where it's expected) and one instance inapp-components/README.md;group-messaging.mdis the only protocol-core doc using it. "Callers" is API-invocation language describing a local function-call boundary between application code and a client library, not a protocol role — the surrounding vocabulary elsewhere in this same document for this actor is "the sender" or "a client," and indeed the very next sentence in this same paragraph uses "the sender."Failure scenario
Low direct interop risk since the surrounding sentence is redundant with "the sender..."; this is primarily a spec-hygiene/surface-boundary violation flagged by the directory's own verification rules.
Suggested fix
Replace "callers" with "the sender" or "a client" to match the surrounding paragraph's vocabulary.