This is a great perspective. I intentionally kept this iteration focused on the core extraction reliability loop, but the direction you're describing is very interesting. In particular, contract versioning, semantic predicates, coordinated healing budgets/circuit breakers, and an audit trail for contract changes could take this from extraction reliability toward a much broader data reliability layer.
Definitely something I'd plan to explore in a future iteration. Really appreciate the thoughtful feedback!
I'd sign off on the 98 to 42% number as the clean example, required field and completeness checks already explain that part. Where I still get burned is a snapshot that looks complete and unique but the fields are just quietly wrong, pointing at a neighbor record or an old value. The piece has drift and record comparison covered but never names who owns the predicates, when they actually run, and whether a broken invariant counts as degraded or straight up invalid. Same gap on healing, nothing says if the two healers step on each other, whether bright data heal gets turned off or if theres a shared budget and circuit breaker so they don't fight. Verify before and after is useful but it only tells you the data matches the contract, not that the contract itself is correct, worth being explicit about that. Pinning heal to a contract version and minting a new one with an audit trail when someone changes the contract feels like the right way to keep this from turning into silent drift