"What is OpenClaw's defining vulnerability?"	The trust-architecture gap: channel messages (untrusted) enter the model's context with the SAME trust status as operator instructions. No tags, no boundary. Enables cross-channel injection (ASI01). NemoClaw + Scout were forked to fix this.	harness-engineering::dd07::recall
"Why did NemoClaw and Microsoft Scout fork OpenClaw?"	Because OpenClaw's trust architecture has no cross-channel untrusted-content boundary. Two independent well-funded teams built governance forks to add enforcement outside the agent's reach. The forks are evidence the deficiency is real.	harness-engineering::dd07::analysis
"OpenClaw scores 35/55. Where does it win and lose vs the CLI harnesses?"	Wins on channel breadth (40+ integrations; no competitor matches the reach) and enterprise adoption. Loses on trust architecture (6=2/5, 5=2/5) — the cross-channel trust gap is its defining deficiency.	harness-engineering::dd07::analysis
"Name 3 things OpenClaw does better than any other harness."	(1) Channel breadth (40+ integrations). (2) Enterprise adoption (NVIDIA + Microsoft). (3) Ecosystem size (368K stars).	harness-engineering::dd07::recall
"Name 3 things to fix if you forked OpenClaw."	(1) Add cross-channel trust boundaries (the NemoClaw fix). (2) Per-channel capability scoping. (3) Injection detection on channel inputs before the model.	harness-engineering::dd07::application
"Is OpenClaw's 368k stars evidence of architectural quality?"	NO. Stars measure attention, not architecture (Module 0.2 anti-pattern #1). OpenClaw's stars tell you it got attention; the existence of NemoClaw tells you the architecture has a real deficiency. Rank by design intent, not stars.	harness-engineering::dd07::analysis