Dated evidence summary · 14 October 2026 · original source dates retained
Publication, access and use: what the dated evidence supports
Publishing a plugin, finding it in a directory and using it successfully are separate evidence questions. The existing studies document useful distinctions, not an observed end-to-end outcome.
What the saved evidence establishes
- Publication is not enhanced placement. The 12 October public remote-MCP study, drawing on remote-MCP review guidance, distinguishes approval from chosen Publish and discretionary main-page placement. The documented confirmation handles are the exact publication name or portal-supplied directory URL. A missing tile alone proves neither failed publication nor harmless unfeatured status; those checks were not performed.
- Access is not useful output. The 8 October Enterprise web/Chat continuity study, drawing on migration guidance and plugin building and use guidance, separates creator access and sharing from recipient installation, selection and familiar output. Its proposed handoff was not tested and establishes no universal migration or old-link continuity guarantee.
- Offline checks are not host results. The 1 October checker study records 33 finite offline assertions; the 2 October recorder study records 49 separate offline assertions. These results concern their stated engineering profiles, not host compatibility, model quality, security approval or update propagation. The ten host specifications remain untested.
What remains unestablished
Actual account and publication state, intended-recipient reach, provider authorization, loaded capability, useful output and customer value remain unobserved in these studies. The original documentation conflicts and hypothetical designs retain their dated limitations. This summary advances no source-check date or policy-change date.
For the broader task map and original source dates, use the 13 October evidence guide or the research index.