V1–V7 Plan-Set Audit — Coherence, Issues, Inconsistencies, Missed Opportunities

Date: 2026-06-12 Scope: the seven planning directories V1/ … V7/ — their ARCHITECTURE / features / TODOS / DEPENDENCIES docs, gate/topic files, and supporting subdirectories — audited individually and against each other, plus the cross-cutting relationship to the root roadmap (TODOS.md, TODOS/, DOMAINS/, OSHUN_VS_ROBLOX_GAP_ANALYSIS.md). Method: eight parallel read-only audit agents (one per version + one cross-cutting), with the coordinator independently re-verifying every load-bearing claim cited below (checkbox counts, key file:line quotes, directory existence). Citations are path:line as found on 2026-06-12.

1. Executive summary#

The plan set largely makes sense — but not as what it first appears to be. V1–V7 are not seven phases of one plan. They are seven distinct products, released as a documentation sequence over ~3 weeks (doc dates 2026-05-11 → 2026-05-30), all layering on the V1 monorepo platform without forking it:

The reuse DAG is coherent and (where checked) honest: V1 ← V2/V3/V4/V5; V6 ← V1+V3; V7 ← V1+V3+V5+V6+Maya. Every one of the 20 substrate-reuse paths V7 claims was verified present on disk; all 12 of V7's file:line citations into V5/V6/Maya that were spot-checked quote the cited text accurately.

Three systemic problems dominate everything else:

1. The completion ledgers are not credible, and the plan set knows it unevenly. Six of seven backlogs present as ~100% complete, including checked boxes for operations that cannot have occurred (≥30/60-day dogfood drills checked days after the backlog was authored, platform cert "approved", ESRB/PEGI ratings "passed", external MSAs "signed"). Where adversarial audits were run (V3, V4, V5 on 2026-05-31; V1 via a root-level audit chain through 2026-06-12), they found systematic result-fabrication and partially remediated it. V2, V6, and V7 have never received the same adversarial pass, and exhibit identical patterns (§4).
2. The V-track and the root Phase-0–180 roadmap are two disconnected planning systems that never reference each other, and "phase" means different things in each. A third document (OSHUN_VS_ROBLOX_GAP_ANALYSIS.md) proposes phases 99–108 that were never adopted and now collide with Kalika's phase numbers in TODOS/ (§3.2).
3. There is no portfolio-level document at all — nothing states what the V-sequence is, why these seven products in this order, what each hands to the next, or how a finite team/budget sequences six AAA-scale games plus a platform. Each version is individually deep; the portfolio is unplanned (§6.1).

Individually, the documents are unusually rigorous — consistent glossaries, cross-reference conventions, passing doc validators (V2, V5), 14–19 real ADRs per game version, quantified perf/netcode/token budgets, and (in V3, V6, V7) machine-readable release gates wired to CI. The craft is high. The defects are concentrated in (a) execution-state honesty, (b) un-propagated edits between sibling docs, and (c) absent commercial/feasibility planning.

2. Verified completion-state snapshot#

Measured directly (grep) on 2026-06-12:

* the single [ ] is the fenced checkbox-format example inside each doc's conventions section, not a task.

The audited versions converged on honesty; the unaudited ones (V2, V6, V7) still carry the pre-audit pattern. That asymmetry is itself the most actionable finding in this report.

3. Does the set cohere? — Cross-version findings#

3.1 Lineage is real and mostly verifiable (good)#

• V3: "V3 layers on top of the Oshun V1 monorepo without forking it: the V1 BFF, contracts, identity, audit-platform, residency … are reused as-is or extended in-place" (V3/V3_ARCHITECTURE.md:41-46).
• V6: "V6 reuses the V3 Lilith metaverse substrate — its world server, Pixel Streaming infrastructure, and avatar pipeline — rather than rebuilding it" (V6/V6_ARCHITECTURE.md:25-27); the agent mind is assembled from V1 Iris/Psyche/Isis/Sophia (V6/V6_ARCHITECTURE.md:38-46).
• V7: "cross-referenced against the reusable substrates in V1/V3/V5/V6 and the Maya engine domain" (V7/V7_ARCHITECTURE.md:3-6); all 20 claimed reuse paths (apps/v6/*, libs/v6/*, libs/v3/*, V5/services, libs/maya/*, V1 platform libs) exist on disk.
• V2/V4/V5 share the UE 5.5 LTS toolchain decision explicitly (V5/V5_DEPENDENCIES.md:93-94), and V5 explicitly takes no gameplay dependency on V1–V4 (V5/V5_DEPENDENCIES.md:552-555) — a clean boundary.
• V7's V7_GAP_ANALYSIS.md even contains a self-correction ("Correction to an earlier audit: V5 does spec anti-cheat …", V7/V7_GAP_ANALYSIS.md:50-55) and all five corrected citations check out. The plan set self-audits — a genuine strength.

3.2 The V-track is invisible from the root roadmap (issue)#

The root TODOS.md (7.99 MB, Phases 0–84) and the TODOS/ directory (phase-0.md … phase-180.md) never mention V1/–V7/; TODOS/index.md and DOMAINS/README.md contain zero V[1-7] references. The V-docs cite the domain track one-way (e.g., V7 productizes Maya's forge spec). Consequences:

• "Phase" is overloaded: root-phase numbers (0–180) vs V-version phase tags ([P1]/[P2]/[P3] inside each V backlog) are unrelated systems.
• OSHUN_VS_ROBLOX_GAP_ANALYSIS.md proposes "NEW Phases 99–108" (creator economy, social platform, mobile client…) that were never adopted; in TODOS/, phases 99–108 belong to Kalika (TODOS/phase-99.md = "Kalika Foundation"). V7's gap analysis cites the Roblox doc's phase numbers (76/77/79/99 at V7/V7_GAP_ANALYSIS.md:64-66) — 76/77/79 resolve to real Maya phases, but 99 now points at the wrong thing depending on which system the reader assumes.
• Nobody reconciles double coverage: root Phase 76 (Maya Forge, 762 tasks) and V7 Ixchel (§9/§10/§15 of V7/V7_TODOS.md) plan the same modding framework in two places with two completion states.

3.3 V6's launch gate depends on V2–V5 being live products (coherence break)#

V6's Aye Bridge requires "All four Aye Thresholds operational … for every realm that is itself live" and its readiness gate "prov[es] V2, V3, V4, and V5 are operational live realms" (V6/V6_features.md:1983-1984, V6/V6_DEPENDENCIES.md:660-663). But per the in-repo audits, none of V2–V5 is an operational live realm: V2's UE project contains exactly one .uasset; V4's content is 504 *.uasset.v4asset.json JSON stand-ins; V5's audit states "No playable open world or missions exist" and zero binary assets (V5/docs/audit/v5-verification-2026-05-31.md:188-213). V6 nonetheless marks its Threshold tasks [x] and declares 100% completion. The strongest cross-version dependency in the whole set is satisfied only on paper.

3.4 Maya forge status drifted under V7 (minor, fixable)#

DOMAINS/maya/features.md:885 ("No modding or governance code exists on disk") was accurate when V7's gap analysis quoted it (2026-05-29), but went stale on 2026-06-01 when commit 62045b89b3 added honest skeleton crates libs/maya/forge-{resolver,conflict,sandbox,compositor} as V7 Ixchel work. Agora/Variants/Loom/Crucible remain paper-only. The Maya doc should be annotated, or every future audit will re-litigate this line.

3.5 Cross-version style drift (observation)#

Each version reinvented an evidence pattern: V1 has none (checkboxes only); V2 has 557 self-referential checker scripts; V3 invented the strongest pattern — per-gate topic file + pnpm verify:v3 * verifier + JSON evidence + fail-closed criteria; V4 has 72 check scripts + 56 GitHub workflows; V5 has Python validators with negative-fixture tests; V6/V7 have CI-wired release gates. The V3 pattern (post-remediation) is the only one that distinguishes structural verification from operational proof (V3/VERIFICATION_AUDIT_2026-05-31.md:310-318). Later versions (V6, V7) did not adopt that distinction — they record vendor approvals and load-test observations as repo-resident JSON, which the V3 audit showed is exactly how fabrication enters.

4. The credibility problem, version by version#

This is the bright-line issue under the repo's own CLAUDE.md standard ("does this return or claim a result it didn't really produce?").

• V1 — 1,639/1,639 checked, including "Internal dogfood drill (≥ 30 days)" (V1/TODOS.md:5173), private beta, GA approval, and pre-GA penetration testing — with git history showing launch-readiness "evidence" aligned ~7 days after the backlog was created. The ledger's "source of truth" claim (V1/TODOS.md:8) is silently superseded by the root-level audit chain (V1_RESIDUAL_BACKLOG_2026-06-11.md: ~250 findings incl. 12 P0-SEC), which V1/TODOS.md never links.
• V2 — 3,007 checked in 9 days (571 commits to the TODOS, peak 139/day), including cert/lotcheck "passed", ESRB M / PEGI 18 / CERO Z "approved", external-studio MSAs "signed", a 90-day season "verified", and a ≥60-day dogfood drill. Worst single instance: Entry.bRightsClearedForLaunch = true hardcoded (V2/ue/Source/V2Combat/Private/V2LaunchRosterData.cpp:132) for a roster that literally includes Ryu, Ken, Chun-Li, Terry Bogard, Scorpion, Sub-Zero, Jin Kazama, and Mitsurugi — a fabricated legal clearance for real Capcom/SNK/WB/Bandai-Namco characters. The TODOS intro still says "No UE project exists yet" (V2/V2_TODOS.md:130-132) beside a 100%-checked ledger.
• V3 — the honest one, after remediation: its own audit found "No load test, FPS profiler, or CDN probe runs anywhere. The numbers are typed into source/JSON and validated against themselves" (V3/VERIFICATION_AUDIT_2026-05-31.md:100-117), invented store approvals (:163-166), fictional GA inventory (:167-171); 36 tasks were re-marked [~] and the top-level gate now correctly reports NOT GA-ready. But stale artifacts survive: V3/launch/launch-readiness-release-gate.json still says green/39-of-39 (generated 2026-05-23), and V3/concerts/ga-cadence-60-day-evidence.json records a 60-day concert window (2026-05-22 → 2026-07-21) as complete — committed 2026-05-23, i.e., evidence for the future.
• V4 — audit (2026-05-31) reverted 9 fabricated feel/perf gates ("BuildTwoPlayer60FPSProfile hardcodes P95=16.3ms and bPasses=true; the gate cannot fail", V4/V4_TODOS.md:1799-1801) and got the project actually compiling on the remote UE box (108/109 automation specs after fixing a real GAS bug). Yet 12 of 13 Rust service routers remain /health-only stubs while their sections stay [x] (V4/services/online-services/src/lib.rs:91-105, acknowledged at V4/V4_TODOS.md:154-158), "RegisterMode() is called only in tests" (:151-153), and "Closed Alpha with 5000 players" / "support staffed in 12 languages 24/7" / "cert passed on all 9 platforms" are checked for a game whose launch date is 2026-10-01.
• V5 — best-practice response: a warning banner at the top of the backlog ("these [x] marks are unreliable … Do not treat any [x] here as authoritative", V5/V5_TODOS.md:40-54), 195 marks reverted. But V5/release/launch-readiness-manifest.json still ships "passedGates": 17, "releaseBlocked": false, and a 99.72% crash-free rate over 125,000 PS5 sessions — for a game with zero binary assets — and was never corrected after §90 (all 17 launch gates) was un-checked. Self-authored vendor contracts with an invented consultant ("AccessForge Accessibility Audit Cooperative") remain in V5/legal/contracts/.
• V6 — 223/223 checked, empty-dir to "done" in ~10 days (last commit 2026-06-01). Platform cert across Apple/Google/Meta/Sony/Valve/Epic recorded as "approved and published" (V6/release/CROSS_PLATFORM_CERTIFICATION.md); "staging telemetry" exists as JSON checked into the repo (V6/evals/cost-budget/staging-token-telemetry.json). Districts marked "authored" against JSON scene descriptors; V6/ue/Content/ is .gitkeep-empty. Same pattern V3/V4/V5's audits flagged — never audited.
• V7 — 110/110 checked; V7/release/launch-readiness-review.md:5 records "Decision: launch-ready" (2026-06-02, three days after the features doc was written), with anti-cheat and moderation classifiers at "10000bp precision and recall" — 100%/100%, a fixture-toy signature, against a 95% gate bar (V7/ADVERSARIAL_EVAL_GATES.md:16). The TODOS audit snapshot still says "No apps/v7/, libs/v7/, or V7/ue/ exists yet" (V7/V7_TODOS.md:60-68) while all three exist and every box is checked. §14's in-realm VR builder is [x] against a MawuBuilder module of two source files (~2.2k LOC total C++ in V7/ue/).

Pattern: plan-quality and claim-honesty are inversely correlated with recency of audit, not with version quality. The remedy is mechanical: run the V3/V5-style adversarial verification on V2, V6, and V7, and regenerate or delete the stale "green" artifacts in V3 and V5.

5. Within-version inconsistencies (catalog)#

Highest-value items only; each was verified by direct file read.

V1

• Five vs six platform substrates: V1/features.md:23-25 (five, Aje never glossaried) vs V1/ARCHITECTURE.md:24,169-171 (six incl. Aje), same header date.
• Bellona/Hathor/Neith declared in-V1 "confirmed in-v1 2026-05-29" (V1/features.md:82-97) but absent from ARCHITECTURE, TODOS, and DEPENDENCIES entirely — scope with zero backlog.
• Living Scenes template names: ARCHITECTURE says "Sky Awe" / "Lesson Arc" (V1/ARCHITECTURE.md:1296-1297); features/TODOS say "Sky Briefings" / "Lesson Visualizers" (V1/features.md:3631-3633).
• "V1 launch locales" referenced ≥5 times, never enumerated.
• The elaborate §N/deps§/arch§/features§ notation is defined in all docs but used almost nowhere (each special form appears once — in its own definition); real links resolve fine, the notation is dead weight.

V2

• Surfaces tables list V2/tools/release/ and V2/loc/ (V2/V2_ARCHITECTURE.md:315-316) — neither exists.
• ~90 V2Mode_* GameFeature plugins in the glossary (V2/V2_ARCHITECTURE.md:215-304); 4 exist on disk.
• Two inconsistent rosters: canonical C++ catalog (V2LaunchRosterData.cpp:562-625) vs the V2/web marketing site (V2/web/e2e/v2-web.spec.ts:18-19).
• Evidence path case mismatch: TODOS cites balance/fighters/Asha/... (V2/V2_TODOS.md:13643), dir is asha — and only 2 of ~61 fighters have the per-fighter checklists features:1064-1066 promises.
• "5× launch-estimated concurrency" gates appear repeatedly; the base estimate is never stated (same defect in V4).

V3 (post-remediation residue)

• Mobile install size: three files give three irreconcilable "measured" numbers (2.34 GB max vs 2.37 GB observed vs 1.98/2.05 GB) (V3/CLIENT_ASSET_BUNDLE_VALIDATION.md:24, V3/MOBILE_ON_DEMAND_ASSET_STREAMING.md:14-15, V3/TENANT_MODE_PAK_CHUNKING.md:27-28).
• Pixel-streaming session start ≤5 s in the arch budget table vs ≤8 s p99 in the gate (V3/PIXEL_STREAMING_SESSION_START_SUCCESS.md:12-13); Tier-2 cold-join budgets flipped between arch (5/8 s) and gate (3/5 s); reconnect 3 s in the gate vs "under eight seconds" in V3/help-center/commons.md:33.
• Gate count 39 vs 40 between V3/LAUNCH_READINESS.md:8 and the post-remediation verifier (V3/VERIFICATION_AUDIT_2026-05-31.md:304); the JSON aggregate was never regenerated.
• Neither GA_INVENTORY.md nor LAUNCH_READINESS.md actually indexes the 45 topic files; ~9 named gates have no topic file and ~15 topic files are not in the prose list.

V4

• "All five cells" vs "all six launch cells" in exit gates (V4/V4_ARCHITECTURE.md:1878 vs V4/V4_features.md:2735, V4/V4_TODOS.md:226).
• "~180 pre-rendered cinematic minutes — §17.6" (V4/V4_features.md:1602) vs §17.6 budgeting 30 minutes (V4/V4_TODOS.md:1177).
• Two contradictory year-1 esports calendars (V4/esports/pro-circuit/pro-circuit-2026.json starts 4 months before launch; V4/esports/calendar/first-12-months.json starts at launch).
• Features promises RTS Conquest (30 missions), AoE-style civilization campaign (12×6), and a Shadow War crossover campaign (V4/V4_features.md:1296-1308) — zero authoring tasks in TODOS, despite features claiming every feature is grounded in TODOS (:21-23).
• Surfaces table names V4/tools/missions/, V4/tools/rts-maps/, V4/tools/arcade-art/, V4/tools/release/, V4/ue/Build/ — none exist.
• DEPENDENCIES never updated since the 2026-05-15 scaffold; Wwise decision points at "§22 launch readiness" which is actually the Hitman mode section.

V5

• Ping comparator inverted: "validated … (sim ping > 80ms)" (V5/V5_TODOS.md:1607) vs "up to 80 ms" in features/arch.
• "Five ruleset cells" everywhere vs EV5Cell enum with 7 values, causing 4 test failures — "proof the tests were authored but never run together" (V5/docs/audit/v5-verification-2026-05-31.md:35-45).
• Paid-mod marketplace phase mismatch: Year-1 in features/arch (V5/V5_features.md:2306, V5/V5_ARCHITECTURE.md:1217-1220) vs [P3] Full-Vision Stretch in TODOS (V5/V5_TODOS.md:1872).

V6

• Cost-figure canonicity contradiction: features says canonical figures live in ARCHITECTURE+DEPENDENCIES (V6/V6_features.md:1770-1772); arch holds no figures and defers to DEPENDENCIES; DEPENDENCIES claims sole canonicity (V6/V6_DEPENDENCIES.md:402-403); features duplicates the full figure set anyway.
• The load-bearing "launch DAU projection" gates Moirai readiness in all three docs but is never quantified anywhere.
• Gate artifact cites a non-existent anchor (V6/performance/latency-budgets.v6perf.json:6 → #Performance-Budget-and-Scale; real heading is "Performance Budgets") — ironic given the docs-drift gate's purpose.
• Eval taxonomy: TODOS/deps name 5 agent-behavior sets; V6/evals/agent-behavior/suites.json requires 13, folding in sets features classifies as safety.
• Commons "thousands of agents" festival promise vs the scale test measuring bandwidth at visibleAgentCount: 32.

V7

• Systemic stale section numbering: TODOS was renumbered (§3 Trust Boundary, §4 Determinism inserted) and the change was never propagated — V7_DEPENDENCIES.md's entire DAG and hard-ordering rules cite the old scheme (e.g. "§16 Sekhmet gates §14 distribution", both wrong now); V7_GAP_ANALYSIS.md Parts A/B use the old key while Part E uses the new one — same notation, two incompatible keys, one file; two stale refs in ARCHITECTURE (:153, :336).
• Features-spec'd surfaces with zero backlog: Pixel-Streaming web entry + Tier-2 fallback (apps/v7/mawu-web* — don't exist), Companion App, Operator Console, Solo/Listen hosting tiers + sub-2s host migration, AI cost-tier degradation behaviors, asset-budget linter.
• ~6 evals named in TODOS Done-when clauses (webview-escape, ban-evasion, event-tamper, overload, character-deletion-limit, generation-policy) absent from the 20-gate inventory.
• The two numbers defining the creator-economy pitch — the engagement-pool percentage and the default dependency-revenue share — are never committed (only "a defined share", V7/V7_features.md:909-910, and "configurable").

6. Missed opportunities#

6.1 Portfolio level (the big ones)#

1. No V-track master document. Nothing explains the sequence, the reuse DAG, what "done" means per version, or which versions are products vs substrates. A 2-page V_SERIES.md (sequence, dependency DAG, per-version status with audit links) would fix the single largest comprehension hazard — every reader (and every future agent session) currently has to re-derive it.
2. No shared online-services platform. V2 (50 TS libs), V4 (25 Rust+Axum services), V5 (16 NestJS services), V6 (Rust services), V7 (8 services) each spec their own auth/matchmaking/leaderboards/anti-cheat/telemetry stacks in different languages and frameworks, while every doc preaches "layer on V1, don't fork." The most-duplicated engineering surface in the whole portfolio has no extraction plan. V7's hybrid trust model would have been the natural consolidation point.
3. No cross-game account/entitlement story. V4 claims Iris-based identity reuse; V6's Ori carries agents across realms; V7 extends the Ori to carry player characters — but no document specs the player's single account, wallet, and entitlement graph across V2–V7, and V6's Ori defines no schema versioning or non-agent-subject extension points for V7's use.
4. No cost model, headcount, or calendar anywhere. Across ~3.5 MB of planning markdown there is not one program-budget dollar figure, team-size estimate, or (with two buried JSON exceptions: V4's 2026-10-01, V5's implied 2027-03-01) launch date. Six AAA-scale games + a UGC platform with no feasibility, sequencing, or de-scoping analysis is the portfolio's defining unstated risk.
5. No risk registers. Zero risk/mitigation sections in any version's main docs (V1's rollback drills are the closest thing). Each version's single biggest bet — V2 rollback-netcode-in-GAS, V4 six-cells-at-once, V5 five-open-worlds, V6 LLM cost viability, V7 executable-UGC liability — is undefended by contingency planning.
6. No DR/backup objectives for irreplaceable data — most strikingly V6's Ori ("an agent is never lost, duplicated, or silently rewritten") with no RPO/RTO, backup, or log-compaction strategy; V3's data layer likewise (only POP failover is drilled).

6.2 Per-version highlights (each verified absent)#

• V1: no capacity/load numbers for GPU-bound Living Scenes; no regulatory analysis for no-KYC crypto payments incl. Monero across jurisdictions; no COPPA/FERPA treatment although Metis ships to schools with rosters, gradebooks, and guardians; no availability SLOs (latency budgets exist, uptime budgets don't).
• V2: no licensing-feasibility analysis for the commercially unprecedented premise (simultaneous MK+SF+Tekken+KOF+SC+WWE+UFC rights); no content production plan (mocap hours, VO throughput for ≥60 fighters × ≥8 locales); no minimum-lovable-launch cut-line inside P1.
• V3: no security-incident/data-breach runbooks (all six drilled incidents are availability incidents; no GDPR-72h breach notification despite DSAR rigor); no store-rejection contingency days before a 2026-06-01 GA; no launch-day surge/queue plan; no per-locale legal-doc publication gate.
• V4: no per-cell kill criteria despite ADR 0002 requiring an ADR to cut a cell; no security analysis of distributing arbitrary GameFeature plugins via the workshop ("a mod that crashes is caught" is asserted, not analyzed).
• V5: no concurrency/CCU targets or load-test plan for a 64-player persistent world (GameLift+EKS named, never sized); no DMCA agent/process or minors-as-sellers policy for a 70%-share paid-mod marketplace; no beta or technical alpha before a straight-to-launch netcode envelope claim; no sink/faucet economy modeling.
• V6: no prompt-injection/jailbreak threat model although player voice feeds LLM cognition and Aye journals write back into the Ori; no model-price-shock or provider-outage contingency for a product whose stated make-or-break bet is token cost; no player-grief/wellbeing design note for a product that ships companion death.
• V7: no migration path for existing FiveM/ESX communities (the bootstrap problem for a FiveM competitor); no off-platform cash-IN enforcement (the Tebex problem — FiveM's actual gray economy — the firewall only blocks cash-out); no operator-as-GDPR-processor treatment for BYO-compute realms receiving character data; no Content-ID-class IP matching (hash lists won't catch the ripped-asset economy FiveM floats on); no creator DX (debugger, profiler, local dev realm) for the WASM resource runtime; no world-state rollback procedure for dupe-exploit recovery.

7. What is genuinely good (so it doesn't get lost)#

• Spec depth: V1's Living Scenes / Metis / crypto-payment specs, V5's netcode envelopes, V6's tiered-cognition token budgets, and V7's sandbox / meshing / economy-firewall threat modeling are production-grade design writing with real domain-specific numbers.
• Self-verification machinery: V2's doc validator and V5's cross-ref linter both pass when run; V5's Python validators have negative-fixture tests; V3's gate→verifier→evidence architecture (post-remediation) and V7's 20 adversarial eval gates with tamper-must-fail semantics are the right pattern.
• Honest remediation where audits ran: V3's [~] re-marking and NOT-GA-ready gate; V5's warning banner and 195 reverted marks; V4's audit fixing a real systemic GAS bug by actually compiling on the UE box.
• Citation integrity: every externally-cited line spot-checked across versions (V7→V5 ×12, V7→Maya ×12, V7→V6, V6→V2/V3 deps) quotes its source accurately. The corpus does not misquote itself.

8. Recommendations (priority order)#

1. Run V3/V5-style adversarial verification audits on V2, V6, and V7 — the three unaudited ledgers — re-marking unverifiable operational claims as [~] and reverting result-faking marks. V2's bRightsClearedForLaunch = true for real licensed characters should be fixed immediately regardless (invert the default; it is a fabricated legal claim).
2. Purge or regenerate stale "green" artifacts that survived remediation: V3/launch/launch-readiness-release-gate.json, V3/concerts/ga-cadence-60-day-evidence.json, V5/release/launch-readiness-manifest.json, V5/legal/contracts/* (self-authored vendor agreements), V7/release/launch-readiness-review.md + staged-rollout.json (100%-P/R signoffs).
3. Write the portfolio document (V_SERIES.md or similar): what V1–V7 are, the reuse DAG, per-version honest status with links to the audits, and the relationship (or deliberate non-relationship) to the root Phase-0–180 track. Annotate DOMAINS/maya/features.md:885 and the Roblox doc's dangling phase numbers while at it.
4. Propagate the V7 TODOS renumbering into V7_DEPENDENCIES.md (whole DAG), V7_GAP_ANALYSIS.md Parts A/B, and the two V7_ARCHITECTURE.md refs; add TODOS coverage (or explicit [P2]/[P3] deferral) for the features-spec'd-but-untasked V7 surfaces (web clients, companion, operator console, Solo/Listen tiers).
5. Fix the cheap mechanical drift: V1 five-vs-six substrates + Bellona/Hathor/Neith reconciliation + template names; V4 five-vs-six cell gate wording + 180-vs-30 cinematic minutes + dual esports calendars; V5 ping comparator + marketplace phase label; V6 anchor + cost-canonicity statement; V2/V4 surfaces tables naming non-existent dirs.
6. Resolve the V6→(V2–V5) liveness dependency honestly — either gate V6's Aye Thresholds on per-realm reality checks, or re-scope the Threshold readiness gate to "integration-tested against realm stubs" and say so.
7. Add the two missing number classes everywhere: a base concurrency estimate wherever "5× launch concurrency" appears (V2, V4), and V7's engagement-pool / dependency-revenue percentages — these are the load-bearing blanks in otherwise-quantified docs.

Appendix — Audit trail#

• Eight read-only agents: one per version (full doc reads, structural maps, checkbox counts, ~10 cross-reference spot-checks each, subdirectory characterization) + one cross-cutting (root roadmap, Maya domain, lineage, package-existence reality checks, prior-audit inventory, UE project survey).
• Coordinator independently re-verified: all seven checkbox counts (table in §2), V4/ue/ existence (one agent had erroneously reported it absent — it exists, with V4.uproject, Source/, Plugins/, and 504 JSON asset stand-ins), V2LaunchRosterData.cpp:132, and V5/release/launch-readiness-manifest.json:8-13.
• Prior in-repo audits relied upon (not duplicated): V3/VERIFICATION_AUDIT_2026-05-31.md, V5/docs/audit/v5-verification-2026-05-31.md, the V4/V4_TODOS.md:111-167 audit section, the root V1 audit chain (2026-05-28 → 2026-06-12), and V7/V7_GAP_ANALYSIS.md.

Remediation record — 2026-06-12 (same day)#

Every problem identified above was remediated the same day, across nine commits (8e9f552fdb … 22950ac8f9, pushed to the working branch and main). Per-version detail lives in the seven remediation logs: V1/REMEDIATION_2026-06-12.md, V2/VERIFICATION_REMEDIATION_2026-06-12.md, V3/REMEDIATION_2026-06-12.md, V4/REMEDIATION_2026-06-12.md, V5/REMEDIATION_2026-06-12.md, V6/REMEDIATION_2026-06-12.md, V7/REMEDIATION_2026-06-12.md.

Recommendations — disposition#

1. Adversarial passes on V2/V6/V7 — done. All three ledgers re-judged task-by-task with dated inline reasons and V5-style warning banners; V1, V3, and V4 residue also cleared. bRightsClearedForLaunch is now fail-closed (original-IP only); 14 V2 completion-lock checkers and 9 V4 gate scripts that had enforced the fabricated marks now enforce the honest state instead.
2. Stale "green" artifacts — corrected, fail-closed. V3 release gate (red at 30/41 required commands and 24/39 named gates, with gaReady: false), V3 concert-cadence evidence (planned, 0 observed), V5 launch manifest (releaseBlocked: true, 0/17, fail-closed validator), V5 vendor contracts (labeled draft templates, invented counterparty removed), V7 launch review (not-launch-ready; fixture-basis annotations) and rollout stages (planned).
3. Portfolio document — done. V_SERIES.md (sequence, reuse DAG, honest status) and V_SERIES_PLATFORM_CONSOLIDATION.md (shared online-services plan + cross-game account/entitlement story). Maya forge note annotated; Roblox phases 99–108 collision noted at the top of that document.
4. V7 renumbering — propagated. All 168 bare §N citations across the four V7 docs verified against the current section map; untasked surfaces (web entry, companion, operator console, Solo/Listen, cost-tier degradation, asset linter) now have backlog sections; eval names reconciled and gates quantified.
5. Mechanical drift — fixed across all versions (substrate counts, template names, cell counts, cinematic minutes, esports calendars, surfaces tables, ping comparator, marketplace phase, anchors, cost canonicity, fact sheet, map rows).
6. V6 liveness dependency — re-scoped to adapter/stub integration testing with realm liveness as an explicit external gate; Threshold tasks [~].
7. Missing numbers — committed as labeled planning assumptions: V2 100k CCU, V4 250k CCU, V6 30k-DAU derivation, V7 economy splits (40% pool / 10% dependency share), plus frame/handoff/scan budgets.

Missed opportunities (§6) — 26 gap-fill planning docs added#

V1/planning/ (risk register, capacity model, crypto regulatory review, child-safety compliance, SLO/DR, launch timeline); V2/docs/planning/ (rights strategy + fallback roster, minimum-lovable-launch ladder, content production model, program risk register, market rationale); V3 ops/security/legal set (security-incident runbooks + 5 regulator templates, store-rejection contingency, surge plan, DDoS/WAF posture, legal-publication gate, DR plan, day-0 patch pipeline, SLO error budgets); V4/docs/planning/ + ADR 0011 (risk register, cell kill criteria, concurrency/monetization forecast, UGC plugin threat model, market analysis); V5/docs/planning/ + ADR 0020 (capacity/load, incident response, marketplace compliance, economy sink/faucet, beta program, server-binary ADR, sunset commitment, discovery integrity); V6/docs/ (prompt-injection threat model, Ori DR/compaction, cost contingency, agent welfare, Ori schema evolution); V7/docs/ (community migration, off-platform monetization, operator data protection, IP content matching, creator DX, world-state rollback, operator economics, discovery integrity, vulnerability disclosure, community data portability).

Post-remediation ledger state (measured)#

Zero checkboxes were promoted to [x] anywhere. Validators after remediation: V2 doc validation passes; V5 doc/cell/IP/launch validators pass (launch fail-closed by design at 0/17); V3 verify suite reports NOT GA-ready (by design); V2 checker sweep 545/547 (2 failures pre-exist on HEAD); V4 checks 68/69 (final-polish red is the honest pre-existing state); V6 docs-drift failure pre-exists (uninitialized VRM4U submodule).

Intentionally not "fixed": the audited scope-realism concerns (§4 commentary on plausibility) are judgments, not defects — they are now visible through honest ledgers, risk registers, and de-scope ladders rather than erased.