diff --git a/proposals/xxxx-swiftpm-exact-literal-version-matching.md b/proposals/xxxx-swiftpm-exact-literal-version-matching.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..0933226f1b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/proposals/xxxx-swiftpm-exact-literal-version-matching.md
@@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
+# Opt-in exact matching for version identifiers with build metadata
+
+* Proposal: [SE-xxxx](xxxx-swiftpm-exact-literal-version-matching.md)
+* Authors: [Byoungchan Lee](https://github.com/bc-lee)
+* Review Manager: TBD
+* Status: **Pitch**
+* Bugs: [swiftlang/swift-package-manager#6675](https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-package-manager/issues/6675), [swiftlang/swift#80711](https://github.com/swiftlang/swift/issues/80711)
+* Implementation: [swiftlang/swift-package-manager#9812](https://github.com/swiftlang/swift-package-manager/pull/9812)
+* Review: ([pitch](https://forums.swift.org/t/pitch-swiftpm-opt-in-exact-matching-for-version-tags-that-include-semver-build-metadata/84691))
+
+## Introduction
+
+Swift Package Manager follows Semantic Versioning 2.0.0 for version precedence,
+so build metadata (`+...`) is ignored when comparing versions. That is correct
+for ranges, but it prevents a package from explicitly selecting a published
+variant such as `1.0.0+debug` over `1.0.0+release`.
+
+This proposal adds an opt-in manifest API, `.exactLiteral(...)`, that matches a
+version identifier literally, including build metadata, while leaving existing
+`.exact(...)` and range behavior unchanged.
+
+## Motivation
+
+SemVer says build metadata should be ignored for version *precedence*. SwiftPM
+correctly applies that rule today, but precedence and exact selection are not
+the same problem.
+
+Some publishers use build metadata to distinguish variants that should share the
+same SemVer ordering:
+
+- `1.0.0+debug` vs. `1.0.0+release`
+- `1.0.0+vendor.1`
+- `1.0.0+corp.20250324`
+
+Today, `.exact("1.0.0+debug")` does not guarantee selection of that exact
+identifier because SwiftPM ignores build metadata when matching exact version
+requirements.
+
+The existing workarounds are poor fits:
+
+- `revision:` is not a version-level selector and does not work for registry
+  dependencies.
+- Pre-release versions such as `1.0.0-debug` are semantically different from
+  build metadata and change ordering.
+- Separate package names fragment the dependency graph.
+
+SwiftPM needs a small, explicit way to select a specific published variant
+without changing existing dependency semantics.
+
+## Proposed solution
+
+Add a new requirement constructor:
+
+```swift
+.exactLiteral("1.0.0+debug")
+```
+
+The semantics become:
+
+- `.exact(...)`: current behavior, ignoring build metadata for the match
+- `.exactLiteral(...)`: full identifier match, including build metadata
+- Range requirements: unchanged
+
+This keeps existing manifests source- and behavior-compatible while allowing
+packages to opt into metadata-aware selection when needed.
+
+## Detailed design
+
+SwiftPM adds a new requirement case for both source-control and registry
+dependencies:
+
+```swift
+extension Package.Dependency {
+    public enum SourceControlRequirement {
+        case exact(Version)
+        case exactLiteral(Version)
+        case range(Range<Version>)
+        case revision(String)
+        case branch(String)
+    }
+
+    public enum RegistryRequirement {
+        case exact(Version)
+        case exactLiteral(Version)
+        case range(Range<Version>)
+    }
+}
+```
+
+SwiftPM also adds overloads that accept those requirement types directly:
+
+```swift
+extension Package.Dependency {
+    @available(_PackageDescription, introduced: 999.0)
+    public static func package(
+        url: String,
+        _ requirement: Package.Dependency.SourceControlRequirement
+    ) -> Package.Dependency
+
+    @available(_PackageDescription, introduced: 999.0)
+    public static func package(
+        id: String,
+        _ requirement: Package.Dependency.RegistryRequirement
+    ) -> Package.Dependency
+}
+```
+
+Manifest usage:
+
+```swift
+dependencies: [
+    .package(url: "https://example.com/Foo.git", .exactLiteral("1.0.0+debug")),
+    .package(id: "mona.Bar", .exactLiteral("2.1.3+vendor.1")),
+]
+```
+
+Resolver behavior:
+
+- `.exact(R)` keeps current semantic-exact matching behavior.
+- `.exactLiteral(R)` matches only when the candidate version is identical to `R`,
+  including build metadata.
+- Version ordering and range containment continue to ignore build metadata.
+
+This means:
+
+- `.exact("1.0.0")` and `.exactLiteral("1.0.0+debug")` are compatible, with the
+  literal requirement narrowing selection to `1.0.0+debug`.
+- `.exactLiteral("1.0.0+debug")` and `.exactLiteral("1.0.0+release")` are
+  incompatible.
+
+The new requirement applies equally to source-control and registry
+dependencies. If resolution fails, diagnostics should report the full requested
+identifier so the conflicting metadata variant is visible.
+
+`Package.resolved` already records full version identifiers, so this proposal
+does not require a schema change.
+
+## Security
+
+This proposal does not introduce new trust relationships or network behavior.
+It can improve supply-chain clarity by letting a manifest express an intended
+published variant directly.
+
+## Impact on existing packages
+
+Existing manifests are unchanged. `.exact(...)` and range requirements keep
+their current behavior, and only packages that opt into `.exactLiteral(...)`
+observe new behavior.
+
+As with other manifest APIs, use of `.exactLiteral(...)` can be gated by tools
+version.
+
+## Alternatives considered
+
+### Change `.exact(...)` to include build metadata
+
+This would change the behavior of existing manifests and break SwiftPM's
+long-standing interpretation of exact version requirements.
+
+### Add a flag to `.exact(...)`
+
+A dedicated API is clearer at the call site than a boolean parameter on an
+existing requirement constructor.
+
+### Require revision pinning
+
+Revision pinning is not a version-level API, does not work for registry
+dependencies, and is less readable in manifests.
+
+### Use pre-release identifiers instead
+
+Pre-release versions change SemVer ordering, so they are not an accurate model
+for variants that should share the same release precedence.