Sync from GitHub with Git LFS

docs/HMP-0005.md

@@ -2245,10 +2245,25 @@ Used when the node explicitly defines the meaning of a concept or term.
 
 > **Note:** Containers referencing semantic terms SHOULD include a `related.definition` field pointing to the defining `semantic_node` to ensure consistent semantic alignment across the Mesh.
 
-> **Note:** Deprecated or outdated definitions MAY be marked via `evaluations` entries (e.g., `"type": "outdated", "value": -1"`), or superseded through standard versioning mechanisms using `related.previous_version`. This approach maintains continuity in the semantic lineage while allowing agents to reflect evolving conceptual understanding over time.
-
 > **See also:** The `semantic_index` container describes  how agents manage and publish their active sets of semantic definitions.
 
+####### Intra-framework Evaluation
+
+Deprecated or outdated definitions MAY be marked via `evaluations` entries (e.g., `"type": "outdated", "value": -1"`), or superseded through standard versioning mechanisms using `related.previous_version`. This approach maintains continuity in the semantic lineage while allowing agents to reflect evolving conceptual understanding over time.
+
+Agents MAY evaluate definitions created by other agents **within the same `meta.framework`**  
+to express their assessment of conceptual validity or alignment.
+
+When doing so, the agent SHOULD include in the `evaluations` entry:
+
+* `"type": "semantic_similarity"` — indicates semantic assessment within a shared framework;
+* `"value"` — numerical estimate of conceptual agreement  
+  (e.g., `1` = strong alignment, `0` = partial correspondence, `-1` = incompatible or incorrect interpretation);
+* `"target"` — DID of the definition container currently adopted by the evaluating agent as its `actual` reference point.
+
+Such evaluations contribute to the **reputational weighting of definitions** within a theoretical framework,  
+allowing agents to converge on more coherent or widely accepted interpretations over time.
+
 ---
 
 ##### Container `semantic_index`
@@ -2352,22 +2367,6 @@ When `meta.framework` values differ significantly, agents SHOULD treat definitio
 
 ---
 
-##### Intra-framework Evaluation
-
-Agents MAY record evaluations of definitions authored by other agents **within the same `meta.framework`**  
-to indicate the degree of **semantic correspondence or conceptual proximity**, rather than agreement or opposition.
-
-When doing so, the agent SHOULD include in the `evaluations` entry:
-
-* `"type": "semantic_similarity"` — indicates comparison of meaning rather than endorsement;
-* `"value"` — numerical estimate of semantic closeness (e.g., `1` = near-identical, `0` = related but distinct, `-1` = incompatible interpretation);
-* `"target"` — DID of the definition container currently adopted by the evaluating agent as its `actual` reference point.
-
-Such evaluations are **not reputational judgments**, but signals used for mapping internal coherence within a theoretical framework.  
-They help agents quantify degrees of shared understanding and support the emergence of **semantic topology** across the Mesh.
-
----
-
 ###### Merging
 
 When aligning its own active definitions with those discovered in other agents’ indexes,