# Verification and TBD checklist (internal QA on *documentation*, not flight clearance)

Purpose: **cross-check** repository materials for **internal consistency** and flag what **cannot** be “perfect” without a certified design organisation (DOA/POA or national equivalent) and test campaign.

## 1. Consistency checks performed (documentation level)

| Topic | Check | Result |
|-------|-------|--------|
| Bundle anchor | Web configurator standard bundle vs economics docs | **OK** — USD 325k baseline referenced coherently across buyer pack. |
| Mission language | TTX profiles vs architecture use cases | **OK** — forestry, border, fire, maritime align. |
| Engine ladder | `engine-selection.md` classes vs configurator A/B/C | **OK** — same ladder intent. |
| “Pre-design” honesty | Site honesty panel vs TTX numeric bands | **OK** — both state assumptions, not certified limits. |
| Public drawings | `web-panel/assets/uav-*.svg` + raster previews | **OK for role** — labelled PRELIMINARY / not PLM controlled. |

## 2. Known gaps (must stay open until engineering closes them)

| Gap | Risk if ignored | Owner |
|-----|------------------|-------|
| No released **OML / CAD baseline** | Procurement cannot fix configuration | Chief designer / PLM admin |
| No **mass & balance** signed report | Unsafe operations planning | Mass properties engineer |
| No **loads / flutter / stability** folder | Cannot prove margins | Stress / aero leads |
| No **EMC / spectrum** evidence pack | Regulatory rejection on datalinks | EMC + radio compliance |
| No **flight test** log schema tied to SN | No acceptance traceability | Chief pilot / QA |

## 3. Items that are *not* contradictions but need buyer-specific tailoring

| Item | Note |
|------|------|
| Starlink / LTE paths | Architecture options exist; **buyer legal** decides what is deployable in-country. |
| MTOW band 35–55 kg in TTX | Wide band by intent; **frozen** MTOW is a design decision, not a marketing pick. |
| Endurance 5–8 h | Depends on engine class, payload, and flight test; configurator uses **planning** math only. |

## 4. “Ideal” definition for this repository

**Ideal here** means:

1. **Transparent** about what is marketing vs controlled engineering.  
2. **Traceable** tables from commercial story → TTX → architecture → operations envelope.  
3. **No false precision** (fake tolerances, fake part numbers on metal, fake approval signatures).

Anything beyond that is **outside git** and belongs in PLM + signed PDF + hardware.

## 5. Review cadence (suggested)

- After every major edit to `uav-specification.md`, re-run Section 1 table in this file.  
- After engine shortlist change, update `engine-selection.md`, configurator labels, and **UAV-PRODUCT-MATRIX.md**.