Rename: views-postprocessing → views-delivery (the name is a misnomer)

[Polichinel]

Problem

The repository / package name views-postprocessing is a misnomer. "Postprocessing" implies statistical post-forecast computation (reconciliation, calibration, draw-collapse), but this repo does none of that — those were judged mis-homed and removed (reconciliation → views_frames_reconcile; draw-collapse → views-faoapi views_frames_summarize). What it actually is, per ADR-012 (revised ontology) and docs/architecture/role_and_seams.md, is a post-forecast delivery + input-integrity layer: it enriches predictions with metadata, guards their integrity (coverage / identity / observed-range / provenance), and delivers them to a partner store.

The name misleads newcomers (and even the maintainer) into expecting a general processing library. It also undersells the actual direction: a partner-agnostic delivery layer (delivery/) with per-partner packages (unfao/ today), about to grow a second prediction store / partner (see C-33 / D-09).

Proposal

Rename to something that screams delivery, e.g. views-delivery (final name TBD). This aligns the name with ADR-012's ontology and the role-and-seams doc, and reads correctly once the repo serves multiple stores/partners.

Why this is a deliberate, NOT-urgent change

This is a published package + repo rename with a wide blast radius — it is not a quick git mv:

• the PyPI package name (views-postprocessing) and the import path views_postprocessing are consumed by other repos (views-models imports views_postprocessing.unfao...; views-faoapi references the contract);
• the publish workflow, CI, pins (pyproject.toml in consumers), and all docs/CICs/ADRs reference the name.

So it needs a coordinated cross-repo cutover (a deprecation shim / dual-publish window, then consumers repoint), done calmly — not during delivery-critical work.

Scope / when

• Not now. Bank it; do it deliberately, ideally bundled with the multi-store rollout (C-33 / D-09) when the repo visibly becomes multi-partner and the rename is most obviously correct.
• Decide the target name (views-delivery vs views-delivery-layer vs other) as part of this issue.

Refs

ADR-012 (the ontology that makes the current name wrong), docs/architecture/role_and_seams.md, C-33 (store identity hardcoded — the multi-store rollout this rename should ride with), D-09.