How should a reseller preserve product identity across downloads and MCP access?

A reseller can request a distribution contract that gives downloads and MCP responses the same product identity. Useful fields include `release_id`, `schema_version`, `policy_version`, `content_digest`, `generated_material` and `licence_reference`. A manifest can map those identifiers to the files or tool resources included in the licensed package.

For JSONL or Parquet exports, release metadata can sit in a companion manifest rather than being repeated in every business record. For MCP access, response metadata could identify the release used to answer a query. Pagination cursors should remain bound to that release so a customer does not unknowingly combine records from different versions.

Ask how schema changes, corrected labels and retired releases would be communicated and represented. These are scope questions, not assumed service commitments. A customer's adapter may need a compatibility check before accepting a changed field or policy definition.

MirrorFirm could scope this metadata alongside generated content. Public discoverability should not be treated as permission to redistribute every accessible resource. A useful starting step is to define one manifest that connects catalogue descriptions, exports and tool responses to the applicable licensed package.