PEP 746: TypedMetadata for type checking of PEP 593 Annotated

Yes, including contributing time on specification language if that’s needed.

Very understandable. As far as I see it, I have no strong opposition to your second point here, and the first one is only in ensuring that we specify it in a way where it composes properly, not to change the actual thing being enabled.

Usually, I’d agree, but in a foreseeable case like this one, I’d rather not out of consideration for both the people who will need to implement support for then both of these into type checkers, as well as potential churn for library authors and devs.

As for foreseeable incompatibility:

There’s another pep being drafted and revised as we discuss this one that would interact poorly