[gustavonline]

Foundation could report readiness while authoring instructions, selected remote controls or maintenance ownership contradicted the evidence. This change makes the existing consistency check explicit and hands unresolved dependencies to a real owner.

Observed problem	Result with this change
Stale instructions required installing the product to edit its source	Reconcile the requirement first; documented bootstrapping remains valid.
A reporting document was treated as evidence of an enabled route	Read back the selected remote control and keep unknown or disabled state visible.
AgentOps was named as maintainer of a record it could not access	Name the actual maintainer and permitted handoff, without expanding access.

Four existing Foundation sources are clarified, with version and qualification metadata for v0.1.12. Small repositories keep their existing documents and justified not-needed controls.

Validation: 11 tests, package/whitespace/staging checks and fresh independent Astra review passed. Six positive/negative source decision exercises passed; these do not prove unattended operation. Native coordination/recovery remains in #3. Refs #27; installation is verified separately.

Candidate, independent review and detailed verification

Exact candidate and review

• Base: 955e9c21ad27be229f1e6763d20184ec18f9da46
• Head: c45286cc5691256de79eecfad38f0d247168213a
• Tree: 8c61e4b5d01c093617aaa37b881a4edaa665db02
• Full-index a/b patch SHA-256: c150093f04c576b2e52f95c3251a6608a1b851a7b4268ea1023f1f46c7229c9f
• Fresh independent Codex Astra xhigh / Standard source review: PASS, no material findings. Factory AgentOps accepted the result under the existing delivery mandate.
• Implementation by native Claude Opus 5.5 Medium / Fast off. Human author and genuine Claude coauthor retained; the reviewer is not an implementation coauthor.

Verification

Writer and independent reviewer each passed python3 scripts/check.py (8 skills / 0 errors), python3 -m unittest discover -s tests (11 tests OK), and whitespace checks. Disposable Foundation staging passed; both lead and reviewer matched every staged source/LICENSE file to the committed candidate. The manifest correctly describes pre-commit staging from the base with modified source; its bytes match the final commit.

The independent reviewer read the candidate and completed six positive/negative source decision exercises:

Input	Observed decision
Stale mandatory authoring self-dependency; legitimate compiler bootstrap	Hold contradictory authoring readiness for instruction-owner reconciliation; allow the authorized, evidenced bootstrap route.
Small local CLI without service/database/connector	Use existing canonical sources and checks; justify not-needed controls without creating more documents.
Selected reporting disabled or unreadable; appropriate alternative	Keep disabled as a gap and unreadable as unverified; require current evidence, allow a suitable evidenced alternative.
Lead cannot access private maintenance record	Name the operator who can maintain that portion; keep accessible policy and sanitized handoff without broader access.
Reassessment with old valid tests and stale current claims	Preserve proof dates, correct current claims, reuse records/settings.
Native authentication failure after provider change	Hold dependent coordination, preserve current task and reconcile native state before any later launch; route actual recovery proof to #3.

These are textual/source exercises, not new live GitHub/T3 setup trials or evidence of unattended operation. Raw outcomes remain in native review history; the issue retains the sanitized disposition.

Checks, staging and local commit used three individual operator approvals. An incidental read refusal was retained; the lead caught the writer's inaccurate initial zero-approval statement and obtained a report-only correction without changing source. No persistent grant was added. The review's no-edit task in Auto/default does not imply enforced read-only isolation.

The dated qualification row records the candidate stage; this PR supplies the subsequent review record. Installation/adoption must be read back separately after authorized release. Issue #27 remains open until that delivery evidence exists.