diff --git a/docs/intent-comment.md b/docs/intent-comment.md
index 319ce77..c85350e 100644
--- a/docs/intent-comment.md
+++ b/docs/intent-comment.md
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ Kept here so it can be reviewed and stays in sync with
 > they're a better fit for this work than a single Standards Track SEP.
 >
 > Two things pushed us here:
+>
 > - @localden's review ask for a **narrower first cut** — the concern that a
 >   broad taxonomy with array-or-scalar polymorphism is hard to remove or change
 >   once it lands.
@@ -31,39 +32,30 @@ Kept here so it can be reviewed and stays in sync with
 > independently-shippable extensions**, each with its own
 > `io.modelcontextprotocol/…` identifier, reference implementation, and path to
 > an Extensions Track SEP. Incubation is in
-> [`experimental-ext-tool-annotations`](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-tool-annotations):
+> [`experimental-ext-tool-annotations`](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-tool-annotations).
+>
+> Kicking off with a few draft extensions in the tool annotations repo — not
+> sure yet whether they'd each need separate repos eventually, or whether
+> grouping them in one is fine. That's part of what incubation is for.
 >
 > | Extension | Scope |
 > |---|---|
 > | `trust-annotations` | The narrow data-classification taxonomy (`sensitive`, `untrusted`) + an open-ended `evidenceRef` pointer for richer, out-of-band evidence. |
 > | `action-metadata` | Tool I/O + outcome contract (folds in @rreichel3's SEP-2061). |
-> | `ifc-fides` | Information-flow control ([arXiv:2505.23643](https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23643)) as **one profile** of `evidenceRef`, not a wire root — the public/private-repo confidentiality case, with github-mcp-server as emitter candidate. |
+> | `ifc-fides` | Information-flow control ([arXiv:2505.23643](https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23643)) as **one profile** of `evidenceRef`, not a wire root — the public/private-repo confidentiality case, with github-mcp-server as an emitter example. |
 >
-> Deliberately **not** in the initial carve: `maliciousActivityHint` (the
-> structural concerns raised here are unresolved) and session-level propagation
-> rules. Those stay parked on this umbrella thread.
+> Deliberately removed: `maliciousActivityHint` (the structural concerns raised
+> here are unresolved) and session-level propagation rules.
 >
 > This follows the same Standards-Track → Extensions-Track refactor pattern as
-> SEP-2127 (#2893). This PR stays open as the umbrella / problem-framing thread;
-> the schema-bearing pieces move out. Feedback on the carve is very welcome —
-> particularly on whether any parked item deserves its own extension sooner.
+> SEP-2127 (#2893). This PR will eventually pivot to the `trust-annotations`
+> piece itself, with the other schema-bearing pieces moving out into their own
+> extensions. Everything is still in the incubation phase, so naming, design,
+> and the choice of what to put forward as an extension are all open for
+> discussion in the IG.
 
 ---
 
-## For SEP-2061 (abbreviated pointer)
+## For SEP-2061 (coordination note)
 
-> Cross-linking for visibility: the Tool Annotations IG is carving the trust /
-> privacy / action-metadata work into small experimental extensions in
-> [`experimental-ext-tool-annotations`](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-tool-annotations)
-> (background: SEP-1913 comment
-> [here](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pull/1913),
-> and the [May 28 IG decision](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/discussions/2820)).
->
-> This proposal maps directly onto the
-> [`action-metadata`](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/experimental-ext-tool-annotations/blob/main/specification/draft/action-metadata.mdx)
-> extension — `inputMetadata` / `returnMetadata` / outcomes, plus a
-> `requiresReview` signal we pulled out of the trust taxonomy because it's a
-> workflow concern, not a data property. The intent is to carry SEP-2061 forward
-> as that extension rather than run a parallel proposal. @rreichel3 — flagging
-> so we co-own it rather than diverge; happy to keep this thread as the home for
-> the field semantics.
+> @rreichel3 — carving this out into an independent extension as discussed: https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol/pull/1913#issuecomment-4675047154