| DEC-001 | Project class is STANDARD. | MICRO (rejected: multi-component, multi-deliverable, external regulatory exposure — GOV-A1.9 would make it a mis-classification); STANDARD (chosen); MAJOR (credible: real legal and financial exposure, but doubles governance overhead for identical business content). | Not scored — this decision is reserved to Zaid by GOV-A1.8 and was taken by him at intake. | Zaid selected STANDARD on 2026-08-20. | If the business proceeds to actual registration, the project should be re-classified MAJOR, because a real regulatory submission carries the exposure that MAJOR class exists for. | GOV-A1.8 reserves classification to the project owner. Recorded rather than decided by the AI. | 2026-08-20 | Closed |
| DEC-002 | Legacy figures in the four prior working files are quarantined, not carried forward. | (a) Carry them forward and re-source later — rejected: GOV-F8.8 makes an unsourced figure a Class 1 defect, and carrying it forward launders it into the new baseline. (b) Delete them — rejected: GOV-D1.7 forbids destruction. (c) Move to 04_Inputs/legacy_unsourced with a defect raised — chosen. | Criteria fixed before assessment: preservation of the audit trail (40%), prevention of contamination of the new baseline (40%), effort (20%). | (a) 1/5, 5/5, 5/5 = 2.6. (b) 1/5, 5/5, 4/5 = 2.4. (c) 5/5, 5/5, 4/5 = 4.8. | Not close. Option (c) wins on both dominant criteria; no plausible reweighting flips it. | The prior files stated ASIC $636, audit $900-$15,000, '3-9 months' and a '$15,000-$30,000 budget' with no source, and predate the July 2026 mandatory registration regime and the 2026-27 price limits. They are retained as evidence of what was believed, not as inputs. | 2026-08-20 | Closed |
| DEC-003 | Recommended service model: SUPPORT COORDINATION, with core supports as a close second. | B1 Core supports (personal care and community participation); B2 Support coordination, optionally with plan management; B3 SIL/SDA supported accommodation. | WEIGHTS FIXED AND RECORDED AT 2026-08-20T09:40 AEST, BEFORE ANY ALTERNATIVE WAS SCORED (scores recorded at 2026-08-20T11:05 AEST): capital to first revenue 20%; time to first revenue 15%; regulatory stability through 2028 25%; margin resilience against sector evidence 20%; competitive intensity and ease of first client 10%; owner-operator fit 10%. | Scored 2026-08-20T11:05 AEST. B1 = 3.30. B2 = 3.70. B3 = 2.20. Full scoring matrix is in the study, section 7. | CLOSE — and Zaid must decide it, not the AI (GOV-B6.4). Raising the weight on regulatory stability from 25% to 40% flips the answer to core supports (B1 3.45 vs B2 3.40). The whole result turns on how heavily you weight the navigator restructure risk to support coordination against the July 2027 mandatory registration exposure to core supports. | Support coordination wins on capital, owner-operator fit and margin per hour, and its mandatory registration is currently paused. It loses on regulatory durability because the NDIS Review's navigator restructure targets the service line itself. Escalated to Zaid under GOV-B6.4 rather than decided. | 2026-08-20 | Parked-Zaid |
| DEC-004 | Registration strategy: trade unregistered from month one and register in parallel, targeting registration before July 2027. | A1 Register first, trade second. A2 Trade unregistered to plan-managed and self-managed participants from month one while the registration application runs in parallel. A3 Do not trade core supports before the certificate; use the window to run support coordination and build referrals. A fourth option, remain unregistered indefinitely, is shown as ELIMINATED and is not scored: the study's own evidence makes it unlawful for a core-supports business from July 2027, and padding the alternative count with an option that cannot be adopted is not three alternatives (DEF-042). | WEIGHTS FIXED AND RECORDED AT 2026-08-20T09:40 AEST, BEFORE ANY ALTERNATIVE WAS SCORED (scores recorded at 2026-08-20T11:05 AEST): capital at risk before first revenue 30%; addressable market 25%; regulatory durability past July 2027 25%; operational burden 20%. | Scored 2026-08-20T11:05 AEST. A1 = 3.50. A2 = 4.10. A3 = 3.25. The totals published until 2026-09-07 were 2.85, 4.05 and 2.30, and independent verification pass V8 established that they could not be produced from the published matrix at all — A3 was out by 1.20 on a five-point scale. The scores are now computed by 01_System/trade_study.py and re-checked by C43 on every build, and the third alternative was replaced with a lawful one (DEF-042). Full scoring matrix is in the study, section 6. | A2 leads A1 by 0.60 on a five-point scale, not the 1.20 published until 2026-09-07. The answer changes hands if addressable market is weighted at 37 per cent instead of 25, taken from capital at risk, or if regulatory durability is weighted at 45 per cent instead of 25 — both hand it to A1. The earlier claim that it would flip only above about 55 per cent was not reproducible under any donor criterion. Computed by 01_System/trade_study.py and re-checked by C43 on every build (DEF-042). | A3 is eliminated on evidence rather than opinion: mandatory registration reaches personal care and daily living supports in July 2027 (SRC-015), so an unregistered core-supports business has a defined end date. A2 preserves cash while the four-to-six month verification pathway runs. | 2026-08-20 | Closed |
| DEC-005 | SIL/SDA is excluded from the recommended path for a first-time entrant. | (a) Include SIL as a candidate first business. (b) Exclude it now and revisit after two years of trading. (c) Exclude it permanently. | Scored inside DEC-003 on the same six weighted criteria. | B3 scored 2.20 against 3.70 and 3.30 — the widest gap in the trade study. | Not close. Even weighting margin resilience at 40% leaves SIL behind, because it loses decisively on capital, time to revenue and owner-operator fit. | Mandatory registration for SIL commenced 1 July 2026 (SRC-016), so there is no unregistered on-ramp; certification audit runs 9-12 months (SRC-021); and national SDA utilisation is 53.7% against a surplus of 4,638 places (SRC-050). Option (b), not (c) — the margin structure is genuinely the best of the three once scale exists. | 2026-08-20 | Closed |
| DEC-008 | SUPERSEDED 2026-09-07. The six-column limit in REQ-CON-04 applies to document tables, not to worksheet grids. | Apply it to worksheets too (rejected: a twelve-month cash projection cannot be six columns wide and remain a twelve-month cash projection, so the requirement would be unsatisfiable rather than demanding); apply it to document tables only (chosen); request a waiver from Zaid (still open to him — GOV-A1.3 reserves waivers to him and they cannot be self-granted, which is why this is recorded as an interpretation and not as a waiver). | Not scored — this is a reading of an existing requirement, not a choice between designs. | Interpreted by the project on 2026-09-07. NOT RATIFIED BY ZAID. | GOV-F4.5a exists for artefacts that cannot carry a mode toggle. A spreadsheet is a grid that scrolls and freezes panes rather than a table that reflows. Checker C29 reports the widest worksheet in every run so the fact is never hidden, and the ten-point floor is applied to all three artefact types without exception. If Zaid rejects this reading, the fix is a waiver he grants or a restructured workbook, not a quieter check. | GOV-A1.3 — a waiver cannot be self-granted, so an interpretation is recorded and escalated instead. SUPERSEDED: independent verification pass V9 rejected the interpretation and was right to. The premise that the requirement was unsatisfiable was the project's own drafting, not the Standard's — GOV-F4.5a asks for readability without horizontal scrolling, and the flat six-column criterion was this project's operationalisation of it. REQ-CON-04 was amended under CR-007 to test frozen panes on wide worksheets instead, which is satisfiable and closer to the rule, and the workbook now satisfies it. Nothing is parked with Zaid any more (DEF-049). | 2026-09-07 | Superseded |
| DEC-006 | The two businesses are held as two separate companies, not one. | One company with two divisions (rejected by Zaid: a compliance failure in either sector reaches the other's assets, and the two regulators are separate); two companies (chosen); one company now with a demerger later (credible: cheaper at the start, but a demerger after clients exist is a transfer of contracts and registrations, not a paperwork exercise). | Not scored — this is an owner's risk-appetite decision reserved to Zaid, not a trade study. | Zaid selected two separate entities on 2026-09-07. | The separation costs $606.50 a month, $7,278 a year and $22,578 over three years against a single entity, and that number was put in front of the decision rather than after it. Revisit if either entity has not reached break-even by month twelve. | GOV-B6.2 — a decision reserved to the owner is recorded, not taken by the project. The cost is quantified so the choice is informed. | 2026-09-07 | Closed |
| DEC-007 | The aged care entity trades first; the NDIS entity registers in parallel but takes clients second. | NDIS first (rejected: contribution collapses to $6.70 an hour once administration is paid, and the base ramp does not turn cash positive within twelve months on that basis); aged care first (chosen); both at once (rejected: it doubles the working capital requirement at exactly the point where the owner's time is the binding constraint); support coordination only (kept as a parallel line, not as the whole business, because it does not scale beyond the owner's own hours). | Scored in the four-way trade study; weights were fixed and timestamped before any option was scored (GOV-B6.3). | Recommended by the project on 2026-09-07. NOT YET RATIFIED BY ZAID. | The recommendation depends on ASM-020, the average assessed budget, which is Low confidence. If the first five referrals average below $20,000 the ordering should be re-tested. | GOV-B6.1 — three or more credible alternatives, weights before scores, sensitivity stated. | 2026-09-07 | Parked with Zaid |