Problem

The collaboration walkthrough described a real Yjs setup, but it read too much like a local slate-v2 capability claim.

That is dangerous because slate-v2 proves the operation/history substrate, but it does not ship slate-yjs, providers, or cursor overlays.

Root Cause

The guide mixed two truths without naming the boundary:

• local core/history integrity
• external adapter integration

When that line stays implicit, readers infer a stronger repo-local collaboration surface than actually exists.

Solution

Mark the boundary explicitly in the docs:

• local slate-v2 proves operation/history integrity
• external slate-yjs owns CRDT/provider/cursor integration
• the walkthrough is an external-adapter guide, not a local package claim

Why This Works

It lets the docs stay useful without lying about product surface.

Readers still get the integration path they need, and maintainers stop paying the cost of a fake local collaboration claim.

Prevention

• If a guide depends on an external adapter, say so plainly near the top.
• Do not let “example integration” read like “repo-local feature.”
• For collaboration docs specifically, separate:
  • operation/history substrate proved locally
  • CRDT/provider integration owned externally