A2UI Rendering Guidance: Document disclosure/chrome separation

[pkras]

Summary

The A2UI implementation (#906) implicitly separates the brand's A2UI surface from the host's chrome (layout, "Sponsored" labels, ad markers, governance disclosures). But this isn't called out in rendering guidance.

What's Needed

• Explicit rendering guidance stating that disclosure labels ("Sponsored", "Ad", governance disclosures) live in the host chrome layer, outside the brand's A2UI component tree
• The brand cannot suppress or style disclosures — the host controls that layer
• Example showing the boundary: what the brand's surface owns vs. what the host chrome owns

This is important for regulatory compliance (FTC endorsement guidelines, EU transparency requirements) and publisher trust.

Ref: #2904 (original RFC), #906 (implementation PR)

[bokelley]

Triage

Classification: Doc gap
Bucket(s): web / site / docs, spec / protocol
Status: ready-for-human (draftable, but regulatory framing needs human judgment)

What the experts said:

• ad-tech-protocol-expert: Pure rendering-contract guidance. A2UI schemas describe what the brand controls; the disclosure boundary is an invariant sitting outside that tree. No schema field needed — adding one would invite brands to try suppressing it. Mirrors IAB's LMT/disclosure pattern and TCF's controller-vs-publisher surface split. Draft-PR-ready.
• docs-expert: Best home is a new consolidated docs/sponsored-intelligence/a2ui.mdx (or a2ui-integration.mdx) that lands A2UI Rendering Guidance: Document disclosure/chrome separation #2919/A2UI Theming: Plumb brand.json palette into A2UI surface at session init #2918/Document A2UI user-action to SI session event mapping #2920 together — three scattered additions will drift. FTC/EU regulatory framing is legal-adjacent; a hallucinated boundary example is worse than no example. Draft structural headings, leave regulatory prose to @pkras / legal review.

My take: Experts agree this is doc-only and conceptually small, but they flag that the FTC/EU framing isn't safe to auto-draft. Recommend bundling with #2918 / #2920 into a single "A2UI Integration Guide" page — one mental model, one PR — and having @pkras or a legal reviewer write the regulatory paragraphs. Happy to draft the structural scaffold (boundary diagram placeholder + compliant/non-compliant example shapes) if @bokelley confirms the consolidated-page approach.

---

Triaged by Claude Code. Session: https://claude.ai/code/1c1fb33b-fecb-4d12-b1db-01a2d5f4f49b

---

Generated by Claude Code

[bokelley]

Triage

Classification: Doc/spec
Bucket(s): spec / protocol, documentation
Status: ready-for-human

What the experts said:

• ad-tech-protocol-expert: Pure rendering-guidance clarification of an invariant already implicit in the host-renders-brand-tree model; parallels IAB SafeFrame chrome separation and OMID viewability-owner boundary. Doc-only.
• docs-expert: Misleadingly doc-only. No A2UI rendering guide exists under docs/sponsored-intelligence/ today; landing guidance requires authoring a new page (e.g. docs/sponsored-intelligence/a2ui-rendering.mdx) with a stated host/brand boundary. That's a protocol decision first.

My take: Experts split on whether the content is already decided. The substantive question — who owns disclosure rendering (host-only vs host-with-brand-suppression-blocked) — needs @bokelley's call before docs can be written. The FTC/EU angle means this can't land as inferred guidance. Recommend: close the product question first (one sentence: "host chrome owns disclosures, brand cannot suppress/style"), then a doc PR follows.

---

Triaged by Claude Code. Session: https://claude.ai/code/cse_01JRhYh1t6yh59x8DCXEWVG8

---

Generated by Claude Code

[bokelley]

Drafted a consolidated A2UI integration page in #3761 that covers the host/brand boundary alongside #2918 (theming) and #2920 (user-action mapping). The structural invariant is stated as four MUSTs in the Host/Brand Boundary section — please review the wording. Marked draft + needs-wg-review; FTC/EU framing is flagged inline for legal review before normative promotion.