Editorial source boundary

Source check

release_gate: complete for the current bounded OPEN prose; empirical validation remains incomplete contract_status: complete status: complete / design-hypothesis publication boundary source_status: current prose checked; architecture remains unvalidated empirically local_review_required: false upload_allowed: false

What is source-safe now

The article may describe:

• FAF's definitions;
• its design constraints;
• its internal failure tests;
• the fact that an end-to-end coherence test was run.

These are statements about the candidate model itself.

What this completed source check covers

draft-v2.md and the matching V2 article fragment were checked as the exact publication text. They contain no external URLs, named external precedents, jurisdiction-specific legal/tax claims, equipment specifications, throughput figures or quantified demand/economic claims.

The piece can therefore be published as an OPEN design hypothesis with its existing limits intact. This completion is about the traceability and boundary of the current prose; it is not evidence that the FAF model works in practice.

Checks still needed before any stronger claim

• exact precedent locators if precedents are named;
• current source capture for any equipment example retained in prose;
• any jurisdiction-specific legal/tax statement;
• any claim that two-livelihood nodes are commercially viable;
• any quantitative claim about customer demand or network cost;
• any claim that FAF improves welfare, productivity or resilience in practice.

Local editorial gate

The core piece remains OPEN. Any upgrade would need a new source review and evidence appropriate to the stronger claim.

Apple case

Apple-process evidence is no longer required for the FAF core article.

The apple case remains separate and awaiting physical pilot evidence.

Data Bank candidates

None automatically.

Do not promote source locators without local capture/versioning and review.

v5.1 draft source posture

draft-v2.md is deliberately written so the main argument is a design hypothesis rather than a chain of unsupported empirical claims.

Before publication, local review should still source or remove:

• any named external precedent if added later;
• any empirical comparison with large firms;
• any quantitative efficiency claim.

Current candidate draft does not claim commercial superiority.