diff --git a/content/tech/spec/activitypub/json-ld.md b/content/tech/spec/activitypub/_json-ld.md
similarity index 100%
rename from content/tech/spec/activitypub/json-ld.md
rename to content/tech/spec/activitypub/_json-ld.md
diff --git a/content/tech/spec/activitypub/shortcomings/extensibility-in-plain-json.md b/content/tech/spec/activitypub/shortcomings/extensibility-in-plain-json.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..04d00af
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/tech/spec/activitypub/shortcomings/extensibility-in-plain-json.md
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
++++
++++
+
+# extensibility for plain-json consumers is underconstrained
+
+the recommendation in the spec is to use JSON-LD for extensions, which leaves open the "best practices" on how might one expect to serialize and parse those extensions.
+
+my thoughts:
+
+- if you consider the mastodon protocol/profile, then you basically have to compact against the same context as them, because mastodon only understands shorthand terms that match their own definitions.
+- a full IRI is the only unambiguous way to refer to the same thing
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/content/tech/spec/activitypub/shortcomings/unclear-type-semantics.md b/content/tech/spec/activitypub/shortcomings/unclear-type-semantics.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..290e614
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/tech/spec/activitypub/shortcomings/unclear-type-semantics.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
++++
++++
+
+# the semantics of some types are unclear or poorly defined
+
+## Note vs Article
+
+see [Note vs Article]({{<relref "note-vs-article.md" >}}) for more. but basically:
+
+in summary:
+
+> Note: Represents a short written work typically less than a single paragraph in length.
+
+> Article: represents any kind of multi-paragraph written work.
+
+but this is contradicted by as2/ap examples.
+
+the messy general consensus post-spec seems to be about "intention", but this is never defined. it is unclear what a `Note` is intended to be, and what an `Article` is intended to be, beyond very loosely and very vaguely tying such notions to app-specific abstractions or behavior. for example, Mastodon will show a Note more or less in full, but convert an Article to a title and url.
+
+it would have been better to define it similarly to HTML `<article>` perhaps? an independent unit of writing? one that is published and therefore might reasonably be syndicated?
+
+## Mention
+
+> Mention: A specialized Link that represents an @mention.
+
+this is an incredibly narrow definition and also one that is often useless. what's so special about an @mention?
+
+it would have been better to define it in terms of, idk, generating a notification or something? like a webmention?
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/content/tech/spec/activitypub/tag.md b/content/tech/spec/activitypub/tag.md
index 1ac1ca4..fe3654d 100644
--- a/content/tech/spec/activitypub/tag.md
+++ b/content/tech/spec/activitypub/tag.md
@@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ An example application would be the Instagram or Facebook "tag a person in this
 }
 ```
 
-However, it might be better to stick to using [Mentions](#mention) as defined below.
+However, it might be better to stick to using [Mentions](#mention) as defined above.
 
 Another example would be tagging a Note or an Article, but the semantic meaning of this is unclear, at least for most current social use-cases.