How should specVersion evolve while the schema remains 0.0.0?

[Evangelink]

Producer context

Microsoft.Testing.Platform validates its CTRF mapping against the upstream specification and currently emits a hard-coded "specVersion": "0.0.0":

• https://github.com/microsoft/testfx/blob/main/src/Platform/Microsoft.Testing.Extensions.CtrfReport/CtrfReportEngine.cs#L6-L11
• https://github.com/microsoft/testfx/blob/main/src/Platform/Microsoft.Testing.Extensions.CtrfReport/CtrfReportEngine.JsonSerializer.cs#L59-L70

The current specification says:

• its version is 0.0.0 and this corresponds directly to specVersion;
• specVersion follows SemVer;
• producers must use the highest CTRF version they fully support;
• consumers should support PATCH changes within a MAJOR.MINOR version.

However, normative schema changes such as the identity model (PR #57, merged July 2026) and clarified retry history (PR #62, merged August 2026) were added while the specification and schema still identify themselves as 0.0.0. The specification header date is also still 2025-11-24. Discussion #30 asks about the v1 roadmap but has no answer.

Questions

1. Does 0.0.0 mean “the latest revision on main”, or does it identify a fixed schema revision?
2. When a normative field or constraint is added before 1.0, should specVersion receive a PATCH/MINOR bump (for example 0.0.1 or 0.1.0)?
3. If all pre-1.0 revisions intentionally remain 0.0.0, how can a producer truthfully identify which schema revision it fully supports, and how can a consumer select the matching validator?
4. Is there or will there be a tagged/released schema artifact, immutable schema URL, or separate revision identifier that producers should record?
5. Until that exists, should producers pin a commit and still emit 0.0.0, or is there another recommended compatibility policy?

Why this matters

Two documents can both claim specVersion: 0.0.0 while conforming to materially different versions of the normative schema. MTP needs a stable contract for deciding when to update its mapping and tests, and CTRF consumers need a reliable way to interpret and validate reports. A brief pre-1.0 release/versioning policy would resolve this without requiring the project to commit to v1 immediately.

Additional conflicting version signals

The current repository also contains a stronger contradiction than the unchanged 0.0.0 header alone:

• the standalone examples (examples/minimal.json, examples/with-retries.json, and examples/comprehensive.json) currently emit "specVersion": "1.0.0";
• normative conformance tests also use "specVersion": "1.0.0";
• the written specification and its embedded examples still identify the working draft as 0.0.0;
• the roadmap still shows the v1 release as incomplete, and the repository has no tags or releases.

That leaves a producer unable to tell whether 1.0.0 is already the intended interoperable value, whether those examples are premature, or whether the specification header is stale. Clarifying the currently valid value would be especially helpful in addition to defining the future bump policy.