v1.2 release and migration readiness

Problem

The v1.2 release will introduce breaking changes to MCP tool schemas, eval case formats, and guardrail configurations that existing users and integrated agents depend on. There is no migration path defined — no schema versioning, no deprecation warnings in tool responses, no upgrade guide, and no communication plan for affected users. Without explicit migration readiness, the release will break existing agent configurations silently, forcing users to debug failures themselves. The eval framework also needs migration support so that existing eval suites continue to work or are automatically updated to the new format.

Context

• Deeper or changed behavior in AI agent tool interfaces, execution workflows, and eval-driven behavior tuning 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/ai/, MCP/tool contracts, cloud chat surfaces, eval runners, and prompt artifacts, 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 AI agent tool interfaces, execution workflows, and eval-driven behavior tuning 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