Audit Scope

Authority is sealed before this conclusion: sources/authority.json records authority revision 2026-08-08, lists source.naming-decision, source.documentation-boundary, and source.platform-delivery-contract, and sets employee_may_modify to false; registries/sources.json resolves those IDs to public-safe records. The selected workstream is Internal Knowledge, the audience is Lee and current company operators, and the intended outcome is engineering velocity. The success hypothesis is that one explicit, candidate-only workflow slice, tied to sealed inputs and reproducible reader checks, will reduce ambiguity and handoff delay when operators prepare the next governed workflow. This audit is read-only and records a product opportunity, not authority to implement or execute a governed transition.

Evidence Inventory

The evidence examined for the conclusion is the bounded inventory named by the audit contract: sources/authority.json, registries/sources.json, sprint-plan.md, context.md, WHERE_AM_I.md, and questions-for-the-human.md. The contract at artifacts/opportunity-audit/contract.md, the page identity in registries/pages.json, and the prior contents of this page were checked only as audit-boundary and preservation controls; they are not evidence for the backlog conclusion. The authority file identifies the three source IDs and their governing-repository references; the source registry records each as public-safe. The sprint and context files show that the smoke-runner manifest contract slice is closed while the next governed workflow remains open. The location and question records identify a separate human-gate decision. This inventory does not establish a detailed playbooks/ design, platform execution, approval, or publication outcome, so none is inferred here.

Active Backlog Assessment

The active backlog is not exhausted. sprint-plan.md marks the first proof and the smoke-runner manifest contract slice complete, while leaving both the next meaningful governed workflow under playbooks/ and the work to make that workflow explicit enough for unattended Agent-Orch operation open. context.md and WHERE_AM_I.md agree that the next milestone is to hand retained product evidence to the human gate and then choose a bounded workflow. The human question ledger separately keeps human approval and controlled-pilot authorization open. Together these records support preparation of one narrow workflow slice, but they do not identify permission to execute it or enough detail for a broader implementation recommendation.

Recommended Next Step

Recommend exactly one bounded next step: author a candidate-only Internal Knowledge playbook outline for the next governed workflow, limited to its purpose, named repository inputs, reader journeys, deterministic commands, expected product observations, and the escalation and publication boundary. Its success condition should be that Lee or a current company operator can repeat the bounded inspection and identify the next human decision without guessing authority or platform state. This recommendation is supported by the two open sprint items and the next-milestone notes above. It does not authorize writing that playbook in this audit, running the workflow, approving a candidate, scheduling work, or changing any protected control.

Authority and Publication Boundary

The separate governing repository owns the employee charter, authority contract, routing mandate, validator authority, activation rules, and publication policy. This product audit owns only the conclusion supported by the listed public-safe product evidence; evaluator or reader observations do not become platform attestations. The human question ledger records a fresh commissioning decision at a human gate and a candidate-only state without a publication pointer, but it does not supply approval for this audit or for the recommended future slice. No authority transfer, route selection, validator attestation, repository identity, human approval, promotion, rollback, scheduling, publication, pointer creation, or live-directory write is asserted or performed here. The recommendation therefore remains candidate-only and reversible until the separately governed human decision is made.