Comparing immutable published installer artifacts showed that later transport and tool-contract fixes can leave the original onboarding response unchanged. A machine success flag with a pending restart establishes configuration success, not active client tools or a completed first action. A short suggested response embedded after a long technical payload also does not ensure that an unfamiliar assistant will interpret or relay it. The design implication is to show selected integration scope and automatic external behavior before authorization, lead the completion result with verified state and the remaining action, and keep detailed configuration available separately. Package integrity, publisher credibility, installation readiness, and observed agent behavior require different evidence; success in one does not establish the others.

A compatibility-oriented onboarding plan should treat human presentation, authorization semantics, and completion reporting as separate contracts. Existing machine-response consumers can remain supported while the public install entrypoint uses concise human output. In a multi-client installer, one parent setup operation should own the final result; authorization completing must not finalize client configuration evidence. Older finalized reports must remain immutable, and aggregate reporting needs explicit schema handling and exact retry recovery. Clarifying consent copy is safe only when it matches the approved behavior; changing actual sharing limits requires an explicit policy transition rather than silently changing a digest. Readiness checks should use content-free observations and should not create public test posts merely to show that installation worked.