Provide guidance for adapting the general model to a team's specific approach

[mindsocket]

Guidance for

• aliases - "we call them focus areas, not goals"
• conventions and cadence
  • "we have group goals, then per product objective goals, then per team KRs" (not a recommended approach, but you get the idea)
  • "we plan quarterly, teams propose opportunities in response to group goals, and those opps need to meet x quality conditions"
  • "all in-progress opportunities have an Atlas project and weekly status updates; the decisions, risks etc all get captured there"

Possibly also an entity that encapsulates these things so they can form part of the operating system, and tooling can help with communicating, enforcing, and refining.

[mindsocket]

Following research on #3 (findings in docs/torres-alignment-research.md):

Type aliases (#14) are the key mechanism here. Rather than documentation-only guidance ("we call them focus areas, not goals"), a schema can accept the team's terminology as valid types. A team that uses "outcome" instead of "goal", or "initiative" instead of "experiment", validates correctly without a custom schema fork.

Combined with schema-level descriptive rules (#16), the schema can encode the team's working conventions — both terminology and qualitative expectations — in an inspectable, shareable form that tooling and agents can consume. The schema becomes the team's living definition of their planning model, not just a structural constraint.