diff --git a/docs/distribution-stage1-framing.md b/docs/distribution-stage1-framing.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..eb493a1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/distribution-stage1-framing.md
@@ -0,0 +1,321 @@
+# Framing — Distribution Stage 1: binaries on tag
+
+**Revision 2.** Status: **approved with amendments** (revision 1 →
+2 records them). Scouted against `githubsucks/main` @ `c5f7501` (#209).
+
+`.github/workflows/` contains exactly one workflow and it is test-only.
+**There is no release job, no artifact upload, no tags-to-binaries path.**
+Installing pmacs means `git clone` plus knowing the feature-flag matrix.
+
+**Scope is deliberately one stage: produce binaries when a tag is
+pushed, and attach them to a GitHub Release.** Channels, rollback,
+update-in-place, signing, and §17's first-launch tool detection are all
+**out of scope and named in §5**. This establishes a baseline, not the
+arc.
+
+**Revision 1 → 2**, all from review:
+
+- **Q#D2 decided with a correction to revision 1's reasoning.** It is
+  `ubuntu-22.04` with an explicit **glibc ≥ 2.35** floor — and revision 1
+  was wrong to imply an older runner reaches RHEL 9. It does not (§1.6).
+- **Q#D1 decided**, with acceptance strengthened to assert *both*
+  binaries report 1.1.0 (§1.3, acceptance 4).
+- **The binary-exclusion mechanism is now two-layered**, not one:
+  explicit `--bin` targets *and* an explicit staged asset list (§1.2).
+- **Revision 1 mis-stated `pmacs --gpu`'s failure mode**, and the
+  corrected version changes *why* co-location is required rather than
+  whether (§1.2a).
+- **Both runners are pinned**, not just Linux (§1.8).
+- **The RC is cut after merge from the merge SHA** and the final tag
+  reuses that same verified SHA (§7).
+
+---
+
+## 0. Coherence impact (COHERENCE §20)
+
+**Squarely §17 / §20 Priority 8: it completes journey step 1 without
+adding an interaction island, a config surface, or a background-work
+model.**
+
+- **Journey step touched: step 1 (install)** — the one step no prior arc
+  could reach.
+- **Concern: §17 Distribution**, graded "missing — zero release
+  machinery exists." This moves it to **Partial**, not Strong: binaries
+  on tag is the first of the seven things §17 asks for.
+- **Interaction islands added:** none.
+- **Config registry adoption:** none — this stage introduces no setting.
+- **Background-work attribution:** none — no worker, job, or process.
+- **Why now:** §20 P8 says every other priority's value is invisible
+  until this exists, and its prerequisite — a tree whose tests actually
+  run — was only satisfied by #209. Before that, a release would have
+  shipped from a corpus half of which CI had never compiled.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Ground truth (measured at `c5f7501`, 2026-08-01)
+
+### 1.1 What exists
+
+Nothing. One workflow, `ci.yml`, test-only; the only `release` strings
+in it are `cargo test --release` flags.
+
+### 1.2 The binary set is NOT what a glob would produce
+
+`Cargo.toml` declares two `[[bin]]` targets, `pmacs` and `pmacs-audit`.
+But **cargo also auto-discovers `src/bin/*.rs`**, so a release build
+additionally produces `pmacs_fake_lsp` and `pmacs_fake_mcp` — test
+fixtures whose purpose is to be spawned by acceptance suites. Plus
+`pmacs-gpu` from its own package.
+
+**Five binaries can land in `target/release`, and three must never
+ship.**
+
+| binary | ship? | why |
+|---|---|---|
+| `pmacs` | **yes** | the editor |
+| `pmacs-gpu` | **yes** | the GPU frontend |
+| `pmacs-audit` | **no** | audits pmacs source against the v1.0 lint rules — a contributor tool with no answer to "what is this for" |
+| `pmacs_fake_lsp` | **never** | test fixture |
+| `pmacs_fake_mcp` | **never** | test fixture |
+
+**Exclusion is two-layered, deliberately.** Avoiding an upload glob is
+not sufficient on its own:
+
+1. **Build explicit `--bin` targets** — `--bin pmacs` and the
+   `pmacs-gpu` package — so the unwanted binaries are not produced by
+   the release build at all.
+2. **Stage an explicit asset list** — copy named files into a staging
+   directory and archive *that*, so the archive's contents are a
+   decision rather than a directory's residue.
+
+Layer 1 without layer 2 still archives whatever a cached
+`target/release` happens to hold from an earlier step; layer 2 without
+layer 1 relies on a list nobody re-checks when a new `src/bin/*.rs`
+appears. Acceptance 2 asserts the **complete member list**, the
+**executable bits**, and the **absence of all three** excluded binaries.
+
+### 1.2a Why `pmacs` and `pmacs-gpu` must be co-located — corrected
+
+Revision 1 said separating them makes `--gpu` "silently fail." **That is
+wrong, and the real behaviour is better.** `gpu_binary`
+(`src/main.rs:304`) prefers a **co-located** `pmacs-gpu` when that path
+`is_file()`, otherwise falls back to the bare name `pmacs-gpu` for a
+**PATH lookup**; if neither resolves, the error names both — *"sibling
+… is absent and PATH lookup for pmacs-gpu failed"*.
+
+So the requirement is not "otherwise it breaks quietly." It is that
+**a release archive must be self-contained**: a user who unpacks it
+somewhere not on `PATH` gets a working `--gpu` only if the two binaries
+sit together. The fallback is a convenience for installed layouts, not a
+substitute for shipping them as a unit.
+
+### 1.3 The version is already incoherent, and a tag makes it visible
+
+| crate | now | after |
+|---|---|---|
+| `pmacs` | 1.0.0 | **1.1.0** |
+| `pmacs-gpu` | **0.0.1** | **1.1.0** |
+| `pmacs-protocol` | 1.0.0 | **1.0.0** (unchanged) |
+
+`pmacs-protocol` stays: it is the wire crate, carries publish-shaped
+metadata, and versions on its own schedule — the protocol is v21 and
+independent of the editor's release number.
+
+Both shipped binaries report their own `env!("CARGO_PKG_VERSION")`:
+`pmacs --version` at `src/main.rs:393`, and `pmacs-gpu --version` at
+`pmacs-gpu/src/main.rs:667`, which prints `pmacs-gpu <ver> (protocol
+v21)` — the protocol number is worth carrying into the release notes.
+
+Tagging `v1.1.0` against the tree as it stands would publish a release
+containing a `pmacs` reporting `1.0.0` and a `pmacs-gpu` reporting
+`0.0.1`. **The workflow must refuse rather than publish** (acceptance
+4), and acceptance asserts the *binaries'* output, not the manifests.
+
+### 1.4 The existing `v1.0.0` tag is stale and is not re-used
+
+`v1.0.0` is pushed and points at `d3fa632` — the old release mirror's
+head, **1,025 commits behind `main`**. There is also an `M8` milestone
+tag. A `v*`-triggered workflow does not retroactively build for either,
+and re-tagging would rewrite a published ref. The first real release is
+**`v1.1.0`**, preceded by `v1.1.0-rc.1` (§7).
+
+### 1.5 CRDT is not optional for a useful release
+
+`default = ["luajit"]`; `luajit` and `lua54` are **mutually exclusive**;
+`crdt` is opt-in on the root package, activated workspace-wide as
+`pmacs/crdt`. README's documented build is the one to ship:
+
+```sh
+cargo build --release --workspace --features pmacs/crdt
+```
+
+**This is not a size/quality trade — a non-CRDT build refuses `--gpu`
+outright.** `run_gpu` opens with a guard printing *"pmacs: --gpu
+requires pmacs built with --features crdt"*. #209 established the same
+thing on the wire side: `InstanceCapabilities::default` advertises
+`multi_frontend` / `crdt_replica` / `semantic_render` only under the
+feature. A non-CRDT release ships an editor that cannot use the GPU
+frontend shipped beside it.
+
+### 1.6 The glibc floor — decided, and revision 1's reasoning corrected
+
+**Linux releases build on pinned `ubuntu-22.04`, with a stated support
+floor of glibc ≥ 2.35.**
+
+Revision 1 implied that moving off `ubuntu-latest` buys reach "several
+distro generations" including RHEL 9. **It does not, and the arithmetic
+matters:**
+
+| target | glibc | covered by a 22.04 build? |
+|---|---|---|
+| Ubuntu 22.04 (jammy) | 2.35 | **yes** — this is the floor |
+| Debian 12 (bookworm) | 2.36 | **yes** |
+| Ubuntu 24.04 | 2.39 | yes |
+| **RHEL 9** | **2.34** | **NO — below the floor** |
+
+RHEL 9 is *older* than the floor, so it needs a lower-glibc container or
+cross-build. **That is not a one-word runner change** and is parked
+(§5). Stating the floor explicitly is what keeps this honest: a user on
+RHEL 9 should read "not supported yet," not discover a loader error.
+
+References: [runner images](https://github.com/actions/runner-images),
+[jammy libc6](https://packages.ubuntu.com/jammy-updates/libc6),
+[bookworm libc6](https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/libc6).
+
+### 1.7 Runtime dependencies are documented but never checked
+
+README names `/bin/sh`, `stty`, coreutils, git and tar, and tells
+packagers to encode them. **Nothing checks any of them at runtime.**
+Out of scope here (§5), but the release notes carry the list rather than
+assume a downloader reads the README.
+
+`pmacs-gpu` additionally needs a working Vulkan/Metal adapter; there is
+no software-rasterizer fallback in a shipped binary.
+
+### 1.8 Runner pinning, and what is NOT established
+
+**Both runners are pinned**, not just Linux: `macos-latest` currently
+resolves to macos-15 (ARM64) and **will drift** — the same silent-choice
+problem as §1.6, in the other direction, where a future move could
+change the minimum supported macOS without a commit to point at.
+
+- **No release has ever been produced**, so nothing here is verified
+  end-to-end. Unlike #209 there is no existing behaviour to measure
+  against; the RC is the first evidence.
+- **No Intel macOS** (§5). arm64 only.
+- **No signing or notarization.** A downloaded macOS binary is
+  Gatekeeper-quarantined and needs an explicit override. Expected for an
+  unsigned baseline; it belongs in the release notes rather than in a
+  claim that macOS "just works".
+
+---
+
+## 2. Decisions (all questions resolved at approval)
+
+- **Q#D1 — versions.** `pmacs` and `pmacs-gpu` → 1.1.0;
+  `pmacs-protocol` stays 1.0.0. Acceptance asserts both shipped binaries
+  *report* 1.1.0 and the tag is `v1.1.0`.
+- **Q#D2 — Linux runner.** Pinned `ubuntu-22.04`; support floor
+  glibc ≥ 2.35, covering Ubuntu 22.04 and Debian 12 but **not RHEL 9**.
+- **Q#D3 — `pmacs-audit`.** Does not ship.
+- **Q#D4 — Intel macOS.** Not in the baseline. macOS runner pinned.
+- **Q#D5 — checksums.** Ship them.
+- **Q#D6 — tests on release.** Do not re-run the suite; assert the
+  tagged commit is an ancestor of `main`, which catches the real mistake
+  (tagging a branch) at negligible cost.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Bets
+
+- **Bet 1 — the release build is the CI build with different flags** and
+  will succeed first time.
+- **Bet 2 — the artifact, not the build, is where this goes wrong.** The
+  plausible failures are packaging-shaped: a stray binary, a split
+  archive, a version mismatch, a glibc floor nobody notices.
+- **Bet 3 — one RC is enough evidence.** A release either produces two
+  runnable, correctly-versioned binaries at a URL or it does not.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Acceptance
+
+1. Pushing a tag matching `v*` produces a **GitHub Release** with
+   attached artifacts; no other trigger produces one. `v1.1.0-rc.1` is
+   marked **prerelease**.
+2. Each archive's **complete member list** is asserted, along with
+   **executable bits**, and the **absence of `pmacs-audit`,
+   `pmacs_fake_lsp` and `pmacs_fake_mcp`**. Verified by listing the
+   downloaded archive, not by trusting the build command.
+3. `pmacs` and `pmacs-gpu` are in the **same directory** within the
+   archive, so an unpacked release is self-contained (§1.2a).
+4. **Version coherence, asserted from the binaries:** the workflow
+   refuses to publish when the tag disagrees with the root crate
+   version, and the downloaded `pmacs --version` and `pmacs-gpu
+   --version` both report **1.1.0**. Verified by a deliberate mismatch,
+   not by inspection.
+5. The tagged commit is an ancestor of `main`.
+6. Each artifact is a **CRDT build**, verified by running the shipped
+   binary rather than trusting the flag (§1.5).
+7. The Linux binary **runs on Ubuntu 22.04 and Debian 12** — verified in
+   containers — and its glibc floor is stated in the release notes.
+8. `SHA256SUMS` covers every published artifact and verifies against the
+   downloads.
+9. Release notes carry the runtime dependencies (§1.7), the glibc floor,
+   the arm64-only macOS scope, and the unsigned/Gatekeeper caveat.
+10. `README.md`'s install section offers the download path **before**
+    from-source.
+
+---
+
+## 5. Parked (explicitly out of scope)
+
+Named so they read as decisions. All are §17 requirements this stage
+does not meet:
+
+- **RHEL 9 and older glibc** — needs a container or cross-build (§1.6).
+- **Intel macOS.**
+- **Release channels**, stable/nightly.
+- **Update-in-place and rollback.**
+- **Signing and notarization.**
+- **Reproducible builds.**
+- **Package managers** — Homebrew, AUR, nixpkgs, distro packages.
+- **Windows.** Unsupported anywhere in the tree today.
+- **First-launch experience** — §17's config-directory creation and
+  optional-tool detection. That is §18 onboarding work.
+- **Protocol/package-API compatibility reporting.**
+
+---
+
+## 6. Gates
+
+The standing `CLAUDE.md` suite applies unchanged; this stage adds no
+Rust logic and no test, beyond the version bumps which the whole suite
+covers. **Its real verification is the RC artifact** — acceptance 2, 3,
+4, 6, 7 and 8 are all performed against a *downloaded* archive, because
+that is the only thing that tests a release.
+
+---
+
+## 7. Branch plan
+
+One branch, `distribution-stage1`:
+
+1. **Bump `pmacs` and `pmacs-gpu` to 1.1.0** (Q#D1).
+2. **Add `.github/workflows/release.yml`** — `on: push: tags: ['v*']`,
+   pinned `ubuntu-22.04` + pinned macOS runner, explicit `--bin`
+   targets, explicit staged asset list, the tag/version assertion, the
+   ancestor check, and `SHA256SUMS`.
+3. **Update `README.md`** so download precedes build-from-source, and
+   state the glibc floor and macOS scope.
+4. **Merge.**
+5. **Tag `v1.1.0-rc.1` from the merge SHA**, marked prerelease. Verify
+   acceptance 2–8 against the published artifacts.
+6. **Tag `v1.1.0` from that same verified SHA.**
+
+**Steps 5 and 6 are the point of the ordering.** A tag on a branch would
+publish a release from unmerged code, so the RC necessarily follows the
+merge — and it is cut *from the merge SHA*, so the final tag can reuse
+the exact commit the RC verified. **If the RC finds a defect, it is
+fixed in a new PR and another RC is cut; the final tag is never the
+first live execution of this workflow.**