v1.2 release and migration readiness

Problem

The v1.2 release will likely introduce changes to the inspect.json schema (new profile fields, restructured distribution data, updated semantic type taxonomy), which means users' existing cached profiles may be incompatible with the new inspector rendering. Without a migration path — schema versioning, automatic upgrade of cached profiles, clear changelogs explaining what changed and why, and rollback guidance if the upgrade causes issues — users will encounter broken inspector reports after upgrading and have no way to resolve the situation short of re-profiling all their tables from scratch. Release migration readiness ensures that the upgrade experience is smooth and users retain trust in their cached data.

Context

• Deeper or changed behavior in warehouse profiling, semantic inference, and analyst-facing inspect/context artifacts often creates migration work for users, operators, or downstream systems, and that work is easy to underestimate until release time.
• This task should make the release path explicit: what is changing, who is affected, what needs communication or tooling help, and how rollback would work if adoption goes sideways.
• Expected touchpoints include dataface/core/inspect/, schema-context consumers, inspect docs, and core tests, release notes, migration docs, compatibility checks, and any support/runbook surfaces that will absorb the change.

Possible Solutions

• A - Treat release readiness as a final checklist after implementation: simple, but it often surfaces migration risk too late to respond well.
• B - Recommended: plan release and migration alongside the feature depth work: document contract changes, compatibility handling, communication, and rollback before the release window.
• C - Force all users onto the new behavior with minimal migration help: faster to ship, but costly in trust and support load.

Plan

1. List the behavior, contract, or configuration changes in warehouse profiling, semantic inference, and analyst-facing inspect/context artifacts that could affect users, operators, or downstream consumers.
2. Define the migration path, release notes, compatibility expectations, and any temporary bridges or tooling needed for safe adoption.
3. Confirm the rollback and support posture for the riskiest changes and make sure the release owner surfaces are documented.
4. Review the plan against the actual implementation scope and create follow-up items for anything that cannot safely make the release cut.

Implementation Progress

Review Feedback

• [ ] Review cleared