Neither here nor in the guidance document is a demographic description of the "committee" who developed the guidance provided. Such a description might include describing who was on the team and characteristics such as volunteer, team leadership, etc., how many people, and if it's at least six people, what % are descendants of slaveholders, and % descendants of enslaved persons. And any other description that might be important for persons evaluating the appeal of the guidelines.
Next. Probably beyond the scope for now, but how will users add these profiles? The general goal of WikiTree is that we strive to add profiles that connect to one world tree. The majority of enslaved persons were kidnapped/sold and may otherwise been deprived of contact, and in many cases, knowledge of their parents and ancestors...
Since the guidance focuses on defaulting to an identity that leverages the slaveholder data, is a link as a nonbiological dependent with the slaveholder being proposed (or is that decision to come later)? Having said that, it is difficult to enter a new person without having some sort of linking (or in this case, anchor) ancestor to start.
Also, the example that Isabelle gave, for example, might ideally have the LNAB that was revealed in later records, but the protocol might also be to preserve the other last name of Carter, since that name appears to have been used. This highlights the plausibility question: perhaps a provisional LNAB works better for these profiles, as it is rare that a user will have completed exhaustive research before creating the profile, and a later discovery might affect the true LNAB, then moving the provisional one to other last names.
I applaud you for taking this on, and I think the outined approach "ups the game" from what the Beyond Kin Project has deployed, as it respects the distinction that slaveholder LNAB may be all that we have to distinctly identify enslaved persons, while also creating the opportunity to have defining documents such as Wills and Census Slave Schedules stored as such, rather than substituting a spousal link for those, or a plantation name, as a marital entity.
The scope of this project is huge (new profiles in the millions are possible). Once everything on methods and conventions is set, we'll also need to determine whether enslaved person profiles need some sort of project management to keep them from being deleted or disassociated from their slaveholders, otherwise, the chances of researchers finding their enslaved person ancestors on WikiTree, leveraging the slaveholder information, gets lost.
I am very excited to see the steadfast progress thus far, and I look forward to the days when researchers are able to visualize this enhanced organization of the data that hopefully increases the frequency of successfully identifying ancestors who were enslaved persons.