I agree, and I think this is actually the missing piece.
Right now DRS helps answer:
"How do I release this?"
CTS would answer:
"How do I release this CLI tool?"
SFDS would answer:
"How do I create a standard?"
But none of them answer:
"Should I build this at all?"
"What is this project trying to accomplish?"
"How do I know when the project is finished?"
That's where a Project Proposal Standard comes in.
What's interesting is that I think this should sit before DRS in the lifecycle.
text
Project Proposal Standard (PPS)
        ↓
Project Development
        ↓
DRS / CTS
        ↓
Release

A lot of project drift happens because the proposal only exists in your head.
Looking at things like FileCabinet, Aegis, Structra, Command Wizard, RepoPulse, NeonInk, SESM, and AAMHS, they all eventually became successful because at some point they developed a clear identity:
• What problem they solve
• What they don't solve
• Who they're for
• Why they exist
The proposal document is where that gets frozen.

───

Project Proposal Standard (PPS)
Philosophy
A project proposal is a design boundary before a code boundary.
The purpose is not approval.
The purpose is clarity.
A project can be approved and still be a bad project.
A project with a good proposal knows what success looks like.

───

Core Documents
text
PPS/

├─ README.md
├─ Project Proposal Standard.md
├─ ProjectProposal.manifest.schema.toml

├─ templates/
│
├─ Project-Proposal.md
├─ Scope-Boundary.md
├─ Risk-Assessment.md
├─ Success-Criteria.md
├─ Roadmap.md
├─ Project-Manifest.toml
│
├─ examples/
│
└─ pps.ps1


───

Project Proposal Template
Every proposal starts with:
text
Project Name

Project Type

Desktop Application
CLI Tool
Library
Framework
Standard
Dataset
Infrastructure
Service

Status

Concept
Planning
Approved
Active
Paused
Archived

Project Theme

One sentence describing the project.


───

Problem Statement
This is mandatory.
text
What specific problem exists?

Who experiences it?

How do they solve it today?

Why is that insufficient?

Example:
FileCabinet:
text
Useful files become difficult to relocate,
categorize, and understand over time.

Windows Explorer stores files.

FileCabinet stores context.

That is a much stronger statement than:
text
File organizer.


───

Mission Statement
One paragraph.
Example:
text
FileCabinet is a local-first artifact catalog
designed to preserve context around files,
datasets, notes, and references.


───

Design Boundaries
This should become mandatory everywhere.
text
FileCabinet intentionally does not:

Replace Windows Explorer
Replace Everything Search
Perform cloud synchronization
Act as a document editor

You already do this naturally in release notes.
I'd move it all the way to the proposal stage.

───

Success Criteria
One of the most important sections.
text
The project is successful when:

A user can catalog artifacts.

A user can relocate artifacts.

A user can search metadata.

A user can recover context months later.

Not features.
Outcomes.

───

Failure Criteria
Rarely documented.
text
The project has failed if:

It requires cloud services.

It requires AI to function.

It becomes slower than manual organization.

It cannot recover artifact context.

This is surprisingly useful when agents start drifting.

───

User Personas
Not marketing personas.
Operational personas.
text
Archivist
Researcher
Developer
Power User
Operator

For Aptlantis projects this is often enough.

───

Technical Direction
High level.
Not implementation.
text
Language:
VB.NET

Framework:
WPF

Storage:
JSON

Distribution:
MSI


───

Constraints
A section most proposals lack.
Example:
text
Must work offline.

Must not require accounts.

Must support Windows 10.

Must remain local-first.

Must remain understandable by a single maintainer.

These become design guardrails.

───

Risk Assessment
Technical Risks
text
Data corruption
Performance degradation
Migration complexity

Project Risks
text
Scope creep
Dependency churn
Maintenance burden


───

Roadmap
Not features.
Phases.
text
Phase 1
Data spine

Phase 2
Core workflows

Phase 3
Verification

Phase 4
Release readiness

This keeps agents focused on progression instead of random feature generation.

───

Project Manifest
Machine-readable.
toml
[project]
name = "FileCabinet"
status = "active"
type = "desktop"

[proposal]
theme = "Artifact Context Preservation"

[scope]
cloud_sync = false
ai_required = false

[success]
criteria_count = 4

[roadmap]
current_phase = 2


───

Proposal Exit Criteria
This might be the most useful section.
A proposal is complete when:
• Problem statement exists
• Mission statement exists
• Design boundaries exist
• Success criteria exist
• Failure criteria exist
• Constraints exist
• Risks exist
• Roadmap exists
Only then should coding begin.

───

The Ecosystem
At that point you'd have:
text
PPS
│
├─ FileCabinet
├─ Aegis
├─ Structra
├─ RepoPulse
├─ Command Wizard
└─ NeonInk

SFDS
│
├─ DRS
├─ CTS
├─ AAMHS
├─ SESM
└─ Future Standards

DRS
│
└─ Desktop Applications

CTS
│
└─ CLI Applications

And the nice thing is that agents can use PPS as the "north star" document. When a project starts drifting, the question becomes:
Does this feature move the project closer to its success criteria?
That's a much stronger filter than "wouldn't it be cool if..." and it's exactly the kind of structure that tends to keep long-lived projects coherent.