APRO is now at a critical juncture that cannot be avoided.

In the past, debates could still be about whether the direction was right or whether the structure was complete, but now the question has become very clear: can APRO become the system's default option? This is not an emotional issue, nor is it about taking sides. It is the ultimate reality test that all infrastructure projects must face.

The survival of infrastructure does not depend on "rationality," but on path dependence. Many projects fail because they look fine—logic makes sense, the product is usable—but they are never indispensable. Users may have you, but they can also do without you; you are in the system, but you do not control the system; you can be replaced at any moment, you just haven't been replaced yet.

The biggest risk for APRO is not that the direction goes astray, but that it gets stuck in the "alternative options" position.

True infrastructure must form path dependence. Once this path is laid out, the entire system's subsequent iterations will develop along it, making it impossible to bypass. Therefore, at this stage, what matters most for APRO is not accumulating user numbers, but fighting for the "design starting point."

The battlefield is not at the application layer, nor at the marketing layer, but at the design layer. The question is: are there new projects starting from scratch that treat APRO's data structure, validation logic, and calculation framework as preconditions? Are there protocols that, when defining technical solutions, assume APRO must exist? Are there new systems considering the risk costs that view "bypassing APRO" as an unnecessary expense?

This is what APRO needs.