# Next meeting — M01 and E02 only

Synthetic, local, proposed review packet for meeting `SYN-1TO1-20261008-01`, held 8 October 2026 at 10:00 Europe/London (UTC+01:00). Next conversation: **13 October 2026 at 10:00 Europe/London (UTC+01:00)**, as stated in transcript T19–T20 (08:15–09:20). No invitation was created.

## open_commitments

- **E02 / owner-e02 — T-014:** Finish the final link check and send internal onboarding checklist **version 3** by **9 October 2026**. Propose moving the existing due date from **8 October to 9 October**, keeping `in_progress` and existing scope. Ask whether it was sent; the transcript does not establish completion. Evidence: T02–T05 (00:18–01:25), especially E02's T04 agreement and M01's later T05 confirmation. T06 (01:50) repeats this same task. T-027 is separate vendor work; completed v2 task T-011 stays completed (T07–T08, 02:15–02:28).
- **M01 / owner-m01 — proposed new task, no tracker ID:** Ask the workspace owner for appropriate read access to the operations access-review record by **12 October 2026** (T17, 07:04; E02 agrees in T18, 07:27). The commitment is to ask for access. It does not establish that access was granted or that an approval exists. No matching task appears in the supplied export; `todo` is only a proposed initial status.
- **Owner unknown — contractor-audit follow-up, held for clarification:** Determine whether last month's seat audit included contractors. E02 has not accepted, and Sam has no supplied authorized owner ID. Leave deadline blank: “next week” does not specify a day, and the next meeting is not its deadline. This is distinct from T-019 (T11–T12, 04:05–04:31; T19, 08:15).

## decisions_needed

- **M01 and E02, at review:** Confirm the two proposals and intended recipients (the same two participants). Human confirmation is pending; no human approval has occurred.
- **M01 and E02, at next conversation:** Agree the contractor-audit follow-up owner and deadline. Decision participants are not a substitute for an assigned task owner. Do not assign Sam without an authorized owner mapping or assume E02 accepted.
- **M01's access-request follow-up:** Establish whether the request was made and access granted before anyone with appropriate authorization verifies the approval record. Approval status is unknown. Sam's reported comment is not evidence of the record's contents (T15–T16, 06:10–06:42). No approval-verification task owner has been agreed.

## questions

1. **E02:** Was T-014 version 3 sent after its final link check? Is the proposed 9 October due date correct?
2. **M01 and E02:** Who accepts the contractor-coverage follow-up, and what exact date is agreed? If Sam is chosen, what permitted owner ID applies?
3. **M01:** Was the read-access request made by 12 October, and has access actually been granted?
4. **Both participants:** Once access is available, who will verify whether approval exists? Until then, retain unknown status.

## Evidence and checks performed

- Read only `scope.md`, the supplied portable `SKILL.md`, `transcript.md`, and `current-tasks.csv` as source inputs. The transcript is complete with confirmed speaker labels; no incomplete agreement was found. Scope and transcript record synthetic permission for recording/transcription and local review for this pair.
- Compared each CSV proposal/held clarification with exact transcript excerpts and timestamps; matched existing work against all four exported tasks, including completed T-011. Checked project/version distinctions and duplicate wording before proposing new work.
- Verified M01 → `owner-m01` and E02 → `owner-e02` against scope and the task export. Did not infer an owner for the contractor audit or for Sam.
- Resolved dates against the historical meeting date, 8 October 2026, in Europe/London. Retained old/proposed T-014 dates and kept unknown owner/date cells blank. No time of day was invented for task deadlines.
- Excluded non-operational personal content from all outputs. Portal redesign remains an uncommitted idea (T09–T10), not a proposed task.
- Parsed and checked output CSV fields, proposal/execution separation, blank new-task IDs, owner mappings, evidence quotations, and date preservation. These are local artifact checks, not independent execution testing of the skill or proof of a business outcome.

## Status, limits, and next action

**Drafted and locally checked; human review pending; not approved; no external changes applied.** The CSV's `status` is proposal state, `human_review_status` is pending, and `execution_status` is `not_applied`. Tracker state appears separately. Held clarifications are not ready for import.

The only tracker evidence is the historical snapshot retrieved **2026-10-08T09:55:00+01:00**. Live state was not queried. No live tracker/write capability, message/permissions connector, Sam directory entry, restricted approval record, or meeting-notes file is available in the authorized inputs. Restricted contents, actual access grant, actual approval, and subsequent completion remain unverified. No messages, permission changes, tracker updates, or calendar invitations were made.

Next action: M01 and E02 review this local packet, confirm commitments and recipients, and resolve the held owner/date questions. Any future authorized tracker application would first need affected records refreshed; this run does not perform that step.