I love everything about this! I think a lot of code could benefit from restructuring via ADTs, and ser/deser is an important piece of that story. But I suppose I do have one nitpick.
Using a fallback for asymmetric fields in sum types seems off to me, albeit pragmatic. If the asymmetric fields for product types use an Option<T>, and Option is basically a sum of a T and a Unit, a close dual is a product (struct/tuple) of a T and the dual of Unit (a Nothing type, eg. one with no instantiable values, such as an empty enum).
I think this would provide similar safety guarantees, as a writer couldn't produce a value of an added asymmetric sum type variant, but a reader could write handling for it (including all subfields besides the Nothing typed one)?
Using a fallback for asymmetric fields in sum types seems off to me, albeit pragmatic. If the asymmetric fields for product types use an Option<T>, and Option is basically a sum of a T and a Unit, a close dual is a product (struct/tuple) of a T and the dual of Unit (a Nothing type, eg. one with no instantiable values, such as an empty enum).
I think this would provide similar safety guarantees, as a writer couldn't produce a value of an added asymmetric sum type variant, but a reader could write handling for it (including all subfields besides the Nothing typed one)?