diff --git a/proposals/1797-profile-error-codes.md b/proposals/1797-profile-error-codes.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..3496ca222a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/proposals/1797-profile-error-codes.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# Proposal for more granular profile error codes
+
+Clients and other applications in the wider Matrix ecosystem may wish to do a "proof of life"
+check on users to see if they exist. For clients, this may be done ahead of inviting a user to
+a room to assist the user in picking the right target. Other use cases may include a bridge which
+is attempting to map from the 3rd party protocol to Matrix instead of the other way around.
+
+Currently the best way to perform this check is to ask for the target user's profile, however
+this option is not great. Under the current specification, servers can return 404 for a wide
+range of reasons which are not all that helpful.
+
+
+## Proposal
+
+We make `GET /_matrix/client/$version/profile/$userId` return more granular responses to aid
+the specific use cases outlined above:
+
+* 200 OK - The profile was found and supplied by the server (no change from the current spec).
+* 404 / `M_USER_NOT_FOUND` - The server acknowledges that the user was not found/does not exist.
+* 404 / `M_PROFILE_NOT_FOUND` - The server acknowledges that the user does exist, but has an
+  otherwise empty profile.
+* 404 / `M_PROFILE_UNDISCLOSED` - The server is refusing to disclose details about this user. Clients
+  cannot assume that the user does or does not exist.
+
+The rationale for keeping all 3 error codes as `404 Not Found` is to maintain backwards compatibility
+with clients which may already be calling these endpoints.
+
+Currently, `M_NOT_FOUND` is returned for when a profile is empty or when the requested user was not
+found. This proposal is splitting that out into `M_USER_NOT_FOUND` and `M_PROFILE_NOT_FOUND` for added
+clarity to clients.
+
+To reiterate, `M_PROFILE_UNDISCLOSED` is not to be assumed as an admission that the requested user does
+or does not exist. The server could be refusing to disclose the user/profile for a variety of reasons
+including prevention of user ID harvesting or to maintain a highly private environment.
+
+In all cases, the server would be expected to proxy the error code returned by remote servers if the
+profile request ends up being for a remote user.
+
+Clients which do check for existence are encouraged to provide the user with a "continue anyways"
+option where possible. For example, if the client checks that users exist before inviting them, it
+may wish to warn the user that one or more targets might not be actual users in the system but should
+still let the user invite them anyways.
+
+
+## Alternative Solutions
+
+#### Add a new proof of life endpoint
+
+Adding another endpoint further complicates the spec for such a small feature. Additionally, clients
+may actually end up wanting the profile returned from the endpoint and shouldn't have to call two
+different endpoints to get highly related information.
+
+
+## Potential issues
+
+If accepted, it is possible that a private federation of servers results in only ever `M_PROFILE_UNDISCLOSED`
+errors, regardless of who is requesting the information. In these cases, clients may wish to consider
+supporting a configuration option for not checking whether a user exists or not to avoid bombarding the
+user with warnings constantly.