A four-word vocabulary for capability status
Every capability in this corpus is described by one of four words — available, foundation, not yet, reference — with a single qualifier on the first for things that are deliberately the operator's rather than a customer's. The distinction the vocabulary exists to protect is the one a manual is most tempted to blur: code existing is not a capability you can use.
The four words, and what each one forbids#
| Word | Means | What it forbids |
|---|---|---|
| Available | Running in production and reachable by both audiences | Nothing by itself — but a page describing only success is still half a page |
| Available (operator) | Running in production, deliberately for the platform operator: running the business rather than using Connect | Describing it as a customer capability, and equally describing its absence as a gap in the customer's feature set |
| Foundation | The model, the service and the tests exist; the usable capability is deliberately narrower than the code | Any sentence a reader could act on as though it were usable — and the page must state what is missing |
| Not yet | Designed and written down, not implemented | Everything. The opening paragraph itself has to say so, in the answer a reader stops at |
| Reference | Background on a standard or a technology | Leaving Connect's own use of it unstated — used, supported, foundation or educational only, said explicitly |
Four words plus one qualifier is a deliberately small vocabulary. A larger one — partial, beta, limited, early access, planned — sounds more precise and is less so, because each new word carries an implication the writer did not have to defend. Five choices force a decision that somebody can disagree with.
The distinction the whole thing exists for#
*Foundation* and *available* are the pair that matters. Foundation means the data model, the service and the tests are real — a reader looking at the code would find the capability there — and the customer-facing behaviour is narrower on purpose. Blurring the two is the single most natural mistake in product documentation, because the writer has usually just been reading the code.
- Call recording
- Foundation. The capability is asked of the provider rather than assumed, and it is not switched on for the carrier in production
- A completed handover of a live call to a person
- Foundation. An escalation phrase queues one and the supervisor panel can act on a live call; finishing the handover depends on a provider capability that is not enabled
- Outbound SMS
- Foundation. Inbound, STOP and suppression all work; sending depends entirely on the configured provider, and the carrier on the live account carries no SMS at all
- Password sign-in
- Not yet, and deliberately: Google OAuth is the only way in
Each of those is a *no* that a reader can plan around. The value is not modesty; it is that somebody choosing a product learns the shape of the boundary rather than discovering it after committing.
The most expensive phrase in a manual#
The two words a manual reaches for when something is unbuilt — the cheerful pair meaning *not now, but shortly* — are refused outright here, and the refusal is enforced rather than requested. They cost more than any other phrase for four reasons, and the reasons compound.
- A reader plans around them. A date that was never given is still read as a date, and a decision gets made on it.
- They never expire. Nothing about the phrase carries a timestamp, so it survives every review that a wrong fact would have failed.
- Support inherits the promise. The person answering "when?" did not make the commitment and cannot withdraw it.
- It converts an honest *no* into an implied commitment, which is separately forbidden: no page here promises a future capability at all.
How the vocabulary is enforced#
- The registry is the authority. If a page's subject appears there, the page takes that status; it does not get to choose a warmer word.
- A not yet page whose opening paragraph does not say so is refused by the build. The answer is where a reader stops, so that is where the honesty has to be.
- A foundation page that never says what is missing is refused too. Naming the status without naming the limit is the same overclaim in a quieter voice.
- A separate written list records claims that may never be made regardless of status — a certification, a customer count, a price, a named customer, a first-person claim to have tested something.
- A technology or protocol page must answer *does Connect use this?* explicitly. A page that explains a technology and leaves a reader believing Connect implements it has failed even if every sentence is true.
What the discipline costs#
It is not free, and pretending otherwise would be its own kind of overclaim. Four words are narrower than reality, so some subjects are described by the nearest honest value with a sentence in the prose saying that is what is happening. A capability that is available for one channel and foundation for another needs the page to carry both, which is more work than one label.
- A status is a claim with a date on it, not a permanent property. Every page carries the date its facts were read, and nothing re-reads them by itself.
- The registry has to be maintained by whoever changes the product, or it becomes a second thing that is out of date — with the added harm that it is trusted.
- Marketing prefers the warmer word, and the vocabulary is a standing argument against it. That argument is the point.
Questions#
Why is foundation not simply the same as not yet?
Because they answer different questions for a reader deciding whether to wait. Foundation says the shape is settled and the constraint is usually a provider capability or a policy rather than unwritten code; not yet says the behaviour does not exist. Collapsing them would also be dishonest in the other direction — claiming nothing is built when something is.
What happens when a page's subject is not in the registry?
Use the nearest honest value and say in the prose that is what you have done. A page is never allowed to invent a status, and a claim that cannot be sourced is written without the claim rather than softened with a hedge.
Does a status ever change without the page changing?
No — the status is on the page, and the registry is the authority the page is checked against, so a change in the registry surfaces as a failure on every page that disagrees with it. That is deliberate: a silent status change is how a corpus starts lying without anybody deciding to.