Continuing to discuss this topic, APRO has actually reached a very difficult crossroads that cannot be bypassed.

Previous discussions could revolve around whether the direction was correct or whether the design was complete. But now, it's different. The question has become very simple and also very brutal: Can APRO become a built-in option of the system, rather than an embellishment accessory?

This is not about emotional attachment or choosing sides. It’s an infrastructure project that will inevitably face this threshold.

How do many projects fail? They fail at points that seem logical.

They are logically consistent, feasible, and indeed used by some. But they are never "your only choice." That is the fate of a reasonable solution — it can be replaced, it just hasn't been yet. But true infrastructure is different. Once the path is locked in, everything that follows must follow this route. This is called path dependence.

The real battleground for APRO now is not at the application layer, nor is it about turning things around through marketing. The key lies in the design layer.

The question is: Are there projects that, in their initial architecture phase, treat APRO’s data structure, validation logic, and calculation model as prerequisites? Are there other protocols that, when setting standards, directly base their plans on APRO’s scheme?

This is the watershed.