Just wanted to make sure that these schema id's are the same as what we registered on paseo for each

They are. Here's the output of the deploy script:

Generated schema mapping:
 {
  "0x203c6838fc78ea3660a2f298a58d859519c72a5efdc0f194abd6f0d5ce1838e0": {
    "tombstone": {
      "1.2": 1
    },
    "broadcast": {
      "1.2": 2
    },
    "reply": {
      "1.2": 3
    },
    "reaction": {
      "1.1": 4
    },
    "profile": {
      "1.2": 5
    },
    "update": {
      "1.2": 6
    },
    "public-key-key-agreement": {
      "1.2": 7
    },
    "public-follows": {
      "1.2": 8
    },
    "private-follows": {
      "1.2": 9
    },
    "private-connections": {
      "1.2": 10
    },
    "public-key-assertion-method": {
      "1.3": 11
    }
  }
}

On the paseo schema 10 does not have any settings , expecting signature required setting on it ?

Same with schema 9 it has setting set to 0 , I think private schemas require signatures enforcement

schema 8 is good it's Avro Paginated and setting=0

I think schema 7 has setting = 3 not sure if it corresponds to AppendOnly

These are the same settings as appear on mainnet. So if they are wrong, so is mainnet 😟

Yeah I think they are wrong "in spirit" meaning most stateful operations everywhere is only calling "upsert_page" extrinsic and it does not check for schema permission but extrinsics with "...._with_signature" might be misleading

I think its, fine but any application that enforces signature permission on schemas should know, not to use the ones in this config,

https://github.com/LibertyDSNP/frequency/blob/9b948d72751839e516791a4cb3ee216985554963/pallets/stateful-storage/src/lib.rs#L770C47-L770C64