# Founding integration review — 2026-09-13

## Inputs and evaluation

Both source ZIPs remain unchanged in `history/`; `history/MANIFEST.json` records
SHA-256 checksums. ChatGPT contributes 13 files and Grok contributes 17 files
(including a DOCX charter and its JavaScript generator). Neither is a runtime.
The DOCX and generator remain recoverable from the Grok archive; its Markdown
content supplies the working charter without introducing a document-build dependency.
The archive READMEs and ChatGPT MANIFEST remain in the ZIPs as provenance.

ChatGPT is stronger on entity boundaries, historical reproducibility, source discipline,
benchmark validity, task-specific ranking, cost accounting, and calibration.
Its architecture is aspirational and its catalogs lack versioned observed results.
Grok is stronger on accessible theory maps, editorial cadence, a practical watchlist,
and a usable ticket shape. Its illustrative routing arithmetic overstates confidence.
Both include dated factual claims without captured retrieval evidence; neither can
seed a trusted production model/price database without verification.

## Resolution

| Conflict or gap | Integrated decision |
| --- | --- |
| Two descriptions and methods | INTENT governs; TaskModelEvaluationMethod and policies govern the advisor; task-router is the operator interface |
| Fixed Grok weights vs task-specific selection | Select five distinct instruments using benchmark-selection-v0.1; normalize task-specific weights and report weak coverage |
| Benchmark percent equals P(success) | Preserve task-fit proxy separately; no Sufficient/Budget claim without adequate calibration evidence |
| Grok 0.70/0.85 vs ChatGPT risk thresholds | Adopt exploratory .60, routine .80, important .90, high_assurance .97 as explicit provisional policies |
| Less than 10% vs inclusive 0.90 formula | Adopt at most 10% degradation (inclusive .90 boundary) |
| Price conflicts, e.g. Terra ranges; blended vs separate rates | Retain historical drafts, do not choose an unsupported price; require dated deployment-specific evidence |
| Fixed p25/p50/p75 vs p50/p90 | Use p50/p90 where justified; otherwise a labeled assumption range, never fabricated quantiles |
| Aggregate index in worked example | Supersede operational example; retain original in ZIP; composite index cannot replace one of the five instruments |
| External automation IDs described as live | Archive-only references; scheduling here is planned and disabled |
| PostgreSQL/object storage target with no implementation | Start with auditable Git + content-addressed JSON; retain migration as future work |

## Imported file treatment

ChatGPT root design files, policy YAML, benchmark seed and landscape were promoted.
Grok compendium, watchlist, frontier snapshots and dated digests were imported with
unverified-draft banners. Router method/template/example and ops instructions were
rewritten to agree with the governing method. The atlas remains candidate discovery,
not a source of verified benchmark versions. Raw originals remain in the ZIPs.

## Acceptance evidence

`make check` checks archive integrity, core files, and the observation ledger and
runs behavior tests. `make demo` exercises record → validate → daily/weekly draft
without polluting the operational ledger. Statehub results are recorded in
`docs/evidence/bootstrap.md` after synchronization.