Node Model And Affinity Spec Pass

Goal

Make node atomicity, voidness, and affinity explicit across the editor-behavior docs so the spec stops hand-waving over the actual editor model.

Phases

• Re-check current spec gaps around footnote references, inline atoms, and affinity policy
• Cross-check current package surfaces for real isVoid, isInline, and mark-affinity declarations
• Update the standards doc to require explicit node-model and affinity declarations
• Update the readable spec with node-model classes and corrected family law
• Update the parity/protocol docs so every current feature family states its model and affinity class
• Verify docs consistency and note any newly exposed stale claims

Findings

• The docs already talked about “atoms” and affinity, but they did not require one explicit model field per feature family.
• The spec drifted into a real lie on footnotes: footnoteReference was treated like an atom in prose while the runtime node was still non-void.
• Runtime surfaces are mixed:
  • links are inline non-void spans with directional affinity
  • mention/date/inline equation are inline void atoms
  • TOC, thematic break, media embed, file/audio/video, image, drawing, and block equation are block void atoms
  • many formatting marks already expose selection affinity in plugin rules (directional, hard, or outward)

Notes

• This pass started as docs-only.
• It exposed one real runtime mismatch: footnote references were spec'd as inline void atoms before the package actually implemented that node model.
• That mismatch was fixed in the follow-up execution tracked in 2026-04-04-footnote-inline-void-fix.md.