Open questions

Contradictions between sources, points the sources leave open, and questions for the project lead on decisions the rules in SCHEMA.md do not cover. Newest at the bottom; settled ones are marked with the answer.

Session 1 (2026-10-01)

1. [Resolved 2026-10-01: adopted into SCHEMA.md.] Citing web pages: a rule is needed. SCHEMA's citation rule assumes page numbers. For web pages in sources/moon-base/, session 1 cited the page's source page plus the section heading in quotation marks, e.g. ([Moon Base Phases, "Phase One"](../sources/nasa-gov-moonbase-phases.md)). Each web source page gives the page's own date ("Updated …" or article date) where it has one, and otherwise the fetch time. Provisional; confirm or replace.
2. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Naming and scope".] Source-page names for web pages. SCHEMA says source pages are named after the source's text file. For sources/moon-base/*.md, session 1 used the file name without .md (e.g. sources/nasa-gov-moonbase.md). Some names are long and truncated (they end in -demonstr, -m, -mission-). Keep them, or shorten them?
3. Contradiction: PSR minimum temperature. The Moon Base encyclopedia and South Pole Region pages give PSRs "as low as -334°F (-203°C)". The Lunar Surface Technology page gives "down to -418 °F" and "near -250°C". The pages are close in date, so the newer-wins rule doesn't settle it, and no ADD source has been read on this yet. Which should the wiki treat as current? See Environment. Session 2 addition: tech gap #0804 sets a design target of robotic operations in PSRs "with minimum temperatures of ~20–30 K", about −250 °C, which fits the colder figure. It is a target, not a measurement, so it doesn't settle the question (gap #0804). Session 29 addition: all of ADD Rev C is now read, and a search of its text finds no measured PSR minimum. Besides #0804's target, the only low figure is DN-003 L's note that Diviner data are "constrained to brightness temperature values between 10 to 450 K" (p. 267). That is a limit on the data, not a minimum temperature. Still open.
4. Contradiction: IPEx capacity. The Lunar Surface Technology page says both "10 metric tons of lunar regolith over the course of 100 meters and 11 days" (Quick Facts) and "on the order of 20 metric tons of lunar regolith over a single mission" (Excavation and Construction). The wiki states both. See Surface technology. Session 2 addition: the tech-gap spreadsheet (Dec 2025, row ESDMD #0605) adds a third version: IPEx is designed "to excavate 10 metric tons of lunar regolith over 14 days" (14 days, not 11). The #0605 page is written next session (written, session 3). Session 3 addition: the sources also disagree on the name. The spreadsheet and the Moon Base landing page's photo caption say "ISRU Pilot Excavator" (the caption adds "also known as RASSOR"); the Lunar Surface Technology page says "Infrastructure Pilot Excavator". The #0605 page tables all four versions side by side. Session 13 addition: ADD Rev C's own #0605 table prints the spreadsheet's version word for word: "ISRU Pilot Excavator (IPEx) (TRL 5)", "10 metric tons of lunar regolith over 14 days" (ADD Rev C, p. 232, PDF checked). So the December 2025 architecture documents agree with each other; only the web pages differ.
5. Phase boundaries overlap. The web pages give Phase One "Now–2029", Phase Two "2029–2032" and Phase Three "2032–Beyond", so the boundary years sit in two phases each. The wiki copies them as written. The Users Guide gives no dates. Session 35 addition: Ignition deck 2 (26 March 2026) starts the phases "now", in 2029 and in 2032 (slide 5), as the web pages do, but its other slides disagree. Its figure boxes say Phase 1 "Now through 2028" (slide 9), Phase 2 "2029–2033" (slide 20) and Phase 3 "2033–2036" (slide 30), and its per-year tables cover 2026–2028 and 2029–2032 (slides 17, 27). So the deck has Phase 1 ending in 2028 and Phase 2 ending in 2032 or 2033, with Phase 3 starting in 2032 or 2033. The wiki keeps the web pages' dates and records the deck's as printed (Phases; source page). Session 36 addition: the deck's Phase 3 table (slide 36) runs 2033–2036, and its summary slide (slide 37) lays the three tables end to end, 2026–2028, 2029–2032 and 2033–2036, with no shared year. So the tables have no overlap, unlike the web pages, and they disagree with slide 5's "Starts 2032" and slide 20's "2029–2033". The wiki still keeps the web pages' dates (source page).
6. [Settled from the sources, sessions 33–36: per phase, for all three phases (Ignition deck 2's per-year tables, slides 17, 27, 36). Still for the project lead: Phase 1's 24 launches against 25, and whether to print the 37,500 kg a year reading. Noted on the overview and Needs in session 52.] Phase numbers: per-phase or cumulative? Users Guide p. 4 gives launches, landings and mass to surface per phase (25/27/29; 21/24/28; ~4,000/60,000/150,000 kg). It doesn't say whether they are per phase or running totals. The wiki presents them as printed and does not add them up. Session 33: partly settled, from a source plus the wiki's reading. The Building the Moon Base fact sheet (24 March 2026) gives Phase 2 "up to 60 tons of cargo during this phase through up to 24 landings". Reading that as the guide's 60,000 kg and 24 landings (the wiki's identification; neither document says it restates the other), Phase 2's figures are per phase. Phase 1's ("Up to 25 missions, including 21 landings", "four tons") agree with the guide's on the same reading. Phase 3 is "up to 38 tons of cargo per year", a rate that can't be set against 150,000 kg, and has no landing count. Still open for Phase 3 (source page; Phases). Session 35 addition: settled for Phase 2 from a source; Phase 1 nearly. Ignition deck 2 prints all nine of the guide's figures, each set in a box with a date range (slides 9, 20, 30). Its Phase 2 per-year table (2029–2032, slide 27) sums to 27 launches and 24 landings, the box's figures, so Phase 2's figures are per phase. Its Phase 1 table (2026–2028, slide 17) sums to 21 landings but 24 launches, not 25 (the wiki's sums of printed counts). Phase 3's box gives "~150,000 kg" for "2033–2036" (slide 30); whether slides 34–65 have a Phase 3 table is for the next item. For the project lead: 150,000 kg over the four years 2033 to 2036 would be 37,500 kg a year, close to the fact sheet's "up to 38 tons of cargo per year". The wiki doesn't print that on a content page: it rests on reading slide 30's years as four (slide 5 starts Phase 3 in 2032), and the wiki doesn't convert "tons". Should it? (Phases). Session 36: settled for Phase 3 from a source. The deck's Phase 3 table (slide 36, 2033–2036) sums to 29 launches, 28 landings and 4 rover icons, slide 30's figures (the wiki's sums of printed counts), so Phase 3's figures are per phase too. Its investment is "$10 BILLION +". The summary slide (37) has 7 launches in 2036, not 8, which would make 28; recorded as printed (question 83). The table's four years strengthen the reading behind the 37,500 kg a year above; the question for the project lead stands. Phase 1's launches (24 against 25) stay unexplained (Phases).
7. [Resolved, session 6, from the sources: yes, they are ADD sub-architectures.] The Users Guide says it groups the functional gaps "by associated sub-architecture" (p. 9), and its seven headings are short forms of seven of the ADD's 12 (ADD Rev C, p. 40). Six functions sit in a group whose ID letter differs (FN-M-401 L and FN-M-501 L under robotics; FN-X-103 L and FN-L-301 L under habitation; FN-A-103 L and FN-U-103 L under mobility). moon-base/ pages now link the groups to sub-architectures/. See Sub-architectures. Original question: Users Guide groups versus ADD sub-architectures. The Users Guide groups functional gaps under seven headings: autonomous systems and robotics; communications and PNT; habitation; logistics; mobility; power; transportation (cargo). Whether these are the ADD's sub-architectures should be checked in the ADD pp. 21–46 session. Until then moon-base/ pages do not link them to sub-architectures/.

8. [Mostly resolved, sessions 15–16, from the sources: the letter is the sub-architecture and the first digit a named group (the lunar decomposition key); L and M mark the lunar and Mars lists (every ID under the B.2 "Lunar" headings ends in L, and B.1's note on independent numbering, p. 109). Still unexplained: the place within a group, and FN-M-701 L, which is outside the key's groups. Marked in session 29.] Parts of the function IDs. The Users Guide doesn't explain the parts of IDs like FN-A-104 L. The letter looks like a function category and the trailing L like "lunar", but no source says so yet. To confirm from the ADD function material. Session 5 addition: ADD pp. 1–20 don't explain the ID parts either. The objective decomposition figure on p. 16 labels use cases "Segments" and functions "Sub-architectures" (Objective decomposition). That fits the letter being a sub-architecture code but doesn't show it. The pp. 21–46 session (sub-architectures, pp. 40–44) or the Appendix B session should check. Session 6, partly answered: ADD p. 40 gives each of the 12 sub-architectures a one-letter "Decomposition Abbreviation" (A, C, D, H, X, G, I, L, M, P, T, U), "used in the objective decomposition". Every function and use-case ID seen so far carries one of these letters in second place, so the wiki reads the letter as the sub-architecture (Sub-architectures). The ADD doesn't spell out the ID format in pp. 1–46, so the Appendix B session should confirm. Still open: the trailing L (and M) and the numbering. Session 15, mostly answered from the source: Appendix B doesn't spell out the format either (pp. 109–135, PDF checked). But:

   • The trailing L and M mark the lunar and Mars lists. Every ID in the tables headed "Lunar Use Case" and "Lunar Function" ends in L, and every ID in "Mars Use Case" ends in M. B.1's note says "The lunar and Mars objective decompositions follow independent numbering schema; the numbering for Mars use cases and functions does not follow sequentially from the lunar decomposition" (p. 109). So FN-T-101 L and FN-T-101 M are different functions.
   • The letter. The lunar lists use all 12 letters of p. 40 and no others. Reading the letter as the sub-architecture is still the wiki's reading.
   • The numbering. The first digit groups related entries (FN-T-2xx L is cargo transport, for example). That is the wiki's observation; no source explains it.

   See Use cases and functions. The suffixes on objective codes (L, M, LM) are a separate question, number 19, still open.

   Session 16, answered from a source except for one detail: the key sheet of the lunar objective decomposition spreadsheet, under a cell reading "FOR REFERENCE ONLY", lists:

   • the 12 letters, each with a sub-architecture name, numbered 1 to 12 in the B.2 order
   • named groups by hundreds for each letter, for example T 100 "Crew Transportation", P 200 "Storage", M 500 "Cargo Repositioining" (typo as printed)

   So the letter and the first digit are both explained by NASA's own sheet (source page). One ID is outside the key's groups: FN-M-701 L (there is no M 700 group). Some titles don't match their group's name. For example, FN-M-301 L (ingress/egress) is in "Crew Mobility"; that is the wiki's reading, and the source page lists more. The place within a group is still unexplained. Close this question?

9. Which Artemis mission is the "First crewed Moon Base mission"? Users Guide p. 4 places it in Phase 1, and the Artemis fact sheet has Artemis IV landing in early 2028. No source links the two. Session 32 addition: still open. The May 2026 release says Moon Base I will "reduce risk for future crewed Artemis landing missions in 2028" without naming a mission, and NASA's Artemis page gives 2028 for both Artemis IV (the first landing) and Artemis V (a "lunar surface mission") (May 2026 release; Artemis page). Session 33 addition: still open. The Building the Moon Base fact sheet puts Phase 1 "ahead of the astronaut missions in 2028", plural, and ESDMD's Ignition deck has a "Notional Plan for 2028 Initial Crewed Landing Mission" near the South Pole (slide 18). Neither calls a mission a Moon Base mission (Building the Moon Base fact sheet; Ignition deck 1). Session 35 addition: still open. Ignition deck 2 keeps the goal as "Complete first crewed Moon Base mission" (slide 7) and labels the Human Landing System and a crewed LTV on its Phase 1 render (slide 10), without naming a mission (source page).

10. [Ignition part settled, session 35, from the sources: Ignition deck 2 holds the phasing details; the SAM.gov solicitation and the shortfall list are still open.] [Partly settled, session 31: three of the landing page's news items are fetched and read; the Ignition page is queued. See question 75.] [Session 32: the Ignition page is read. Its own text has no phasing details: it holds procurement summaries and links to the "Building the Moon Base" fact sheet and presentation, which are queued. The deck-2 item settles whether they hold "full, up-to-date phasing implementation details" (Ignition page).] Pages linked but not fetched. www.nasa.gov/ignition (the Users Guide says it has "full, up to date phasing implementation details", p. 4), the Lunar Surface Technologies solicitation on SAM.gov, the 2026 Civil Space Shortfall List, and the Moon Base news items listed on the landing page. Fetch any of them? Session 33 addition, for the deck-2 item: the "Building the Moon Base" fact sheet linked from the Ignition page is read. It holds the phases' names, dates (the web pages'), contents and cargo figures, and a page on commercial and international participation; no mission-by-mission plan (source page). Whether that, with the deck, amounts to "full, up to date phasing implementation details" is left to the deck-2 item. Session 35: the Ignition part is settled from the sources. What the Ignition page links does hold phasing details beyond the guide's. The guide's p. 4 figures are the Moon Base Program's deck's (slides 9, 20, 30), and the deck adds date ranges, rover counts, payload contents, per-year tables of assets, landers and launches for Phases 1 and 2, "$10 BILLION" for each of those phases, and key missions with specifications (Ignition deck 2; Phases). Whether the deck has a Phase 3 table is for the slides 34–65 item. "Up to date" is another matter: the deck is dated 26 March 2026, before the guide, and its dates disagree with themselves (question 5). Still open: the Lunar Surface Technologies solicitation on SAM.gov and the 2026 Civil Space Shortfall List. Session 50 addition: still open. The two linked pages read in session 50 (NASA's standards page and the NextSTEP-2 Appendix R page) bear on neither. The Appendix R page's sam.gov links are Appendix R's own notices of 2024, not the Lunar Surface Technologies solicitation (source page).

Session 2 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Links and columns the wiki derives".] Function-ID cross-references on gap pages: keep them? Several gaps trace to functions that the Users Guide also lists as Phase 1 functional gaps: FN-H-201 L (#0301), FN-A-201 L (#0805), FN-L-101 L and FN-L-205 L (#0807), FN-H-102 L (#0303), FN-C-201 L (#0101), FN-L-301 L (#0702), FN-L-201 L (#0701) and FN-A-302 L (#1005). Neither source makes this link; the wiki joins them. Session 2 put these under "Traceability" as labeled cross-references and kept them out of "Moon Base relevance", which uses only the Users Guide's explicit gap list. "All FN" entries were not expanded into function IDs. Keep the cross-references, drop them, or promote them into Moon Base relevance? Session 3 addition: ratings 30–57 add FN-A-201 L (#0501), FN-X-103 L (#0401–#0405), FN-A-302 L (#1002, #1004) and FN-H-102 L (#0306).

   Session 3 also extended the #0305 practice of noting, under "Moon Base relevance", Users Guide or Moon Base web passages on the same subject that do not cite the gap. Each note says so. The full inventory for ratings 30–57:

   • Phase 1 capability targets:

     • 0401: "exercise"

     • 0405: "extended duration medical"

     • 1002 and #1004: "Earth-independent operations"

     • 0605: "lunar site preparation"

     • 0601: power used for "ISRU processing"

     • 0102: FN-C-105 L and the "> 500Mbps" target

   • Associated challenges that cite other gaps:

     • 0306: "Initial habitation", which cites #0807 and #0903

     • 1201: "Small cargo return", which cites data gaps only

   • Mars-forward areas:

     • 0802: dust tolerance

     • 1202: planetary protection

     • 0902: nuclear technologies

     • 0401–#0404 and #0406: human factors

     • 1002 and #1004: independent operations

   • Moon Base solicitation areas:

     • 0601: oxygen production

     • 0502: "in-space manufacturing"

   Keep these notes, or limit the section to the explicit list? If they go, session 2's

   0305 note goes too.

   Session 4 addition, data gaps: the data-gap pages add a third kind of wiki-made link, Phase 1 missions that will measure what a data gap asks for. No source pairs them. The pairs are:

   • SCALPSS on Blue Moon MK1: DN-017 L, DN-018 L
   • LDES on Griffin-1 and IM-3: DN-019 L
   • VIPER: DN-007 L, DN-013 L
   • MoonFall: DN-002 L, DN-007 L, DN-012 L

   They are collected in one labeled table on data gaps index, with a short labeled note on each of the seven pages. Dropping them means one table and seven paragraphs. (DN-017 L's own row names SCALPSS, for its Blue Ghost flight; that one is the source's link, not the wiki's.) The pages' "Related pages" lists also link topically related tech gaps, each labeled "the wiki's link; no source pairs them", following the session 3 practice of topical related-page links.

   Session 7 addition, elements: a fourth kind of wiki-made link, Moon Base assets matched to ADD elements. The Moon Base pages never mention the ADD, so each match rests on a name or wording. The four matches:

   • Lunar Terrain Vehicles (Phase One) = the LTV element. Same name, and four sentences of the ADD one-pager repeated with only their subjects changed.
   • JAXA pressurized rover (Phase Two) = the Pressurized Rover element. Same name and provider, and the same wording on operations and the 28/14-day figures.
   • Lunar Reactor-1 (2030, no phase) = the Lunar Nuclear Fission System. The only basis is the shared project name "Fission Surface Power" at Glenn.
   • Altus-1's "Near Space Network Services contract" = the ADD's NSN "Commercial Services contract". The names differ slightly.

   Each is labeled on its element page and collected on Elements, kept apart from links the sources make themselves (CLPS, the Initial Surface Habitat, Gateway hardware). Same-subject passages that don't name an element, such as the Users Guide's "small utility rovers" or its 2 t landers, are explicitly not matched. The gap pages #0901, #0902 and #0803 gained related-page links to elements, each labeled as the wiki's. Keep the four matches, or limit Moon Base relevance to source-made links?

   Session 8 addition, recurring tenets: a fifth kind of wiki-made link. The tenet pages list tech and data gaps on the same subject as a tenet's open items, under "Related pages", each block labeled "the pairing is the wiki's". Examples: RT-5's robotic maintenance "architecture gap" (p. 93) with #0501; RT-7's lunar surface docking with #0807; RT-6's SCALPSS with DN-017 L and DN-018 L. None of these is in "Moon Base relevance", because concept pages don't have that section.

   Session 9 addition, elements by function ID: a sixth kind. The 2025 Architecture Update prints the functions of the two Rev C elements (pp. 5, 7; they match ADD pp. 158, 160). Four of the Lunar Utility Rover's six (FN-A-104 L, FN-A-105 L, FN-A-302 L, FN-M-501 L) and all three of the Lunar Nuclear Fission System's (FN-P-101 L, FN-P-301 L, FN-P-401 L) are on the Users Guide's list of Phase 1 functional gaps. Both element pages now carry this under "Moon Base relevance", labeled "the wiki's join". Each also says that the guide's definition of a functional gap ("unallocated … or … need additional performance", p. 9) doesn't tell which half applies. The rover's section still opens "Not established by the sources so far", with the join beneath it, labeled. Also labeled as the wiki's: the rover's FN-A-302 L appears in the traceability of #1002, #1004 and #1005. The other 13 elements' mappings (ADD Appendix B.3) are unread. Keep this kind of join, and extend it to all elements in the Appendix B session, or keep Moon Base relevance to source-made links?

   Session 15 addition, function titles: ADD Appendix B.2 gives the titles. The new pages Lunar use cases and Lunar functions list every lunar ID with NASA's title and two source-made columns:

   • which tech gaps name it (from the sheet's traceability field)
   • whether the Users Guide lists it for Phase 1

   These are not wiki joins: each source names the ID itself. Putting the two columns side by side confirms the session 2–3 inventory. Exactly 10 functions are on both lists, the 10 listed above. Session 15 did not add titles to the 57 gap pages. The gaps index and #1107 point to the list pages instead. A new problem bears on the Phase 1 list itself: open question 40.

   Session 16 addition: three more joins built on the lunar decomposition spreadsheet. All are labeled where they appear:

   • Phase 1 functional gaps against the sheet's allocation. The Users Guide's 31 IDs are set beside the FE+ allocation ("FORWARD WORK"). 9 of the 31 are marked "Unallocated" (two of them also carry the fission system); 22 have an asset and no Unallocated mark. Neither source cites the other, and the guide's definition doesn't say which half applies. This is on Lunar function allocation only. Moon Base pages, Moon Base relevance sections and element pages were not edited.
   • "All FN" expanded. The gaps' "All FN" entries on lunar use cases are listed with the functions the sheet puts under each use case, in one table on the gaps index. The 11 gap pages were not edited.
   • Sheet asset names matched to ADD elements by name. Examples: "Human-Class Delivery System" is matched to the Human-Class Delivery Lander, "Initial Surface Habitation" to the Initial Surface Habitat, LCRNS and NSN/DSN to SCaN Networks (Lunar function allocation).

   Keep these, extend the first one to Moon Base pages, or drop them?

   Session 24 addition: the session 9 join extended to all elements, and the Phase 1 join to the ADD. The session 9 question asked whether to "extend it to all elements in the Appendix B session". Session 24 did so, labeled as the wiki's join each time:

   • Element pages. Each has a new section, "Functions (ADD Appendix B.3)", with a "Moon Base Phase 1 functional gap?" column, as on the two Rev C element pages. The "Moon Base relevance" sections gained one short labeled paragraph each.
   • Phase 1 functional gaps. The 31 IDs are now set beside ADD B.3 and B.5 as well as the sheet. B.5 lists 11 of them as unallocated; 20 are mapped to elements and not in B.5. This is the first time the join appears on a Moon Base page (session 16 kept it on the allocation page only).

   Drop these if the project lead prefers Moon Base relevance kept to source-made links.

2. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Citing".] [Markers resolved, session 8, from the source: ✓ means a completed definition task and * a child gap with multiple parents. The citation-format part below is still open.] ADD Rev C's gap tables carry the legend "“✓” indicates completed definition task" (Appendix D, e.g. p. 204, checked against the PDF). Appendix D.1 says "the * symbol denotes a child gap with multiple parents" (p. 199). Section 3.1.3 agrees: the four ticked tasks (LD-03-L, LD-102, LD-103, MD-07) are legacy decisions or completed tasks there, and the five unticked ones (MD-01, MD-09 to MD-12) are not (Key definition tasks). The six gap pages with a ✓ now say what it means. Left for the Appendix D session: 13 gap pages still say "The sheet does not explain the asterisk". That is true of the sheet, but they could cite p. 199. Session 12: done. All 19 gap pages that said this now quote p. 199 (the count had grown since session 8). Still unexplained: why #0902 keeps solar and fuel-cell child gaps after MD-07 chose fission at the 2024 ACR (ADD p. 75). Session 13: the ADD's own #0902 table does the same. It prints all four child gaps (nuclear, solar, fuel cell, storage) beside "MD-07 Primary Mars Surface Power Generation Technology" with its ✓ (p. 245, PDF checked). So this isn't a spreadsheet lag; both December 2025 documents carry it. Original question: Unexplained markers in the tech-gap spreadsheet. Some child gaps carry * (e.g. 0201-03*); starred children appear under more than one parent. Some definition tasks carry ✓ (e.g. ✓LD-102 Lunar Logistics Strategy, ✓LD-03-L Lunar Landing Region Selection). Possibly "shared child gap" and "completed definition task", but the sheet doesn't say. The ADD may explain both; the gap pages reproduce them as printed. Session 3 addition, evidence on ✓: #0902 (Mars surface power) marks ✓MD-07 Primary Mars Surface Power Generation Technology, and the newer Users Guide says "NASA has already selected nuclear fission as primary power generation technology" for Mars (p. 14). That fits ✓ = decision made, but it is one case. The spreadsheet still lists solar and fuel-cell child gaps under #0902. The #0902 page gives both. Session 7 addition: ADD Rev C, from the same month as the spreadsheet, already states the selection. The Lunar Nuclear Fission System responds "to NASA's selection of nuclear fission as the primary surface power generation technology for initial human Mars missions" (ADD Rev C, p. 58). So the decision was already stated the same month the spreadsheet was released, which strengthens ✓ = decision made for MD-07. The ADD's Appendix C list of completed definition tasks (p. 192) should settle it. Session 10 addition: the "Architecture Definition" white paper's case study says the MD-07 task "examined a range of power sources, including solar power, nuclear fission power, and other sources (e.g., geothermal power, fuel cells)" and "ultimately decided upon nuclear fission power" (p. 5). Its Table One shades MD-07 as closed. It still doesn't say why the sheet keeps the non-nuclear child gaps, so that part stays open. Session 25 addition: the 2024 paper that records the decision limits its reach. Fission "establishes the primary power generation technology for the Humans to Mars architecture segment but does not dictate funding for technology development or restrict other power technologies that could operate on the Martian surface", and "the potential for supplementary, backup, and redundant systems remains an open area of architectural analysis" (Mars Surface Power Technology Decision, p. 1). That leaves room for solar and fuel-cell work, but neither the paper nor the gap table says that is why the child gaps remain, so the question stays open. Recorded on #0902. Related, citation format: SCHEMA says to cite spreadsheets by sheet and row ID. The workbook has one sheet, and its name is only inferred from the extraction file name, so session 2 cited by row only ("Tech gaps spreadsheet, ESDMD #0801") and explained this on the source page. Confirm or change.

3. [Resolved, session 8, from the source: 1 is the highest priority.] ADD Appendix D.1 defines the rating as "The gap's location in the prioritized list of gaps", and the bin as "Distinct groupings of architecture preference of gap closure based upon prioritized list to show relative priority" (p. 199). D.2 lists the gaps "in priority order" from #0801 at 1 (p. 200). Section 3.2.2 gives the method: four metrics (criticality, urgency, breadth, depth), weighted in that descending order through an "Analytical Hierarchy Process"; cost is not considered; "all gaps, even those in the lowest priority bin, are highly architecture driven" (pp. 77–78). The weight values are not printed in Section 3.2, and no per-gap scores appear in the spreadsheet, the D.2 list (p. 200) or the gap tables (e.g. p. 204). All 57 gap pages, the gaps index and the tech-gap source page now say so. Original question: Priority rating scale not explained yet. The spreadsheet gives a priority bin (1–6) and an overall rating (1–57, each used once; bins are contiguous rating ranges). It doesn't say whether 1 is the highest priority. The gap pages say so and wait for the ADD Rev C pp. 71–104 session.
4. Duplicate child-gap title. "High-performance processors for deep space missions" appears as 0202-01, 0805-02, 1002-02 and 1004-01, each unstarred. Is it one need numbered four ways, or four different ones? Session 12 addition: the ADD's table for #0202 also prints 0202-01 unstarred (p. 209, PDF checked). D.1 reserves the star for "a child gap with multiple parents" (p. 199), so the ADD treats 0202-01 as having one parent. The tables for #0805, #1002 and #1004 are in the second half of Appendix D (pp. 231–261), for the next session. Session 13 addition: all three are unstarred in the ADD too: 0805-02 (p. 240), 1002-02 (p. 248) and 1004-01 (p. 250), PDF checked. So by D.1 the ADD treats them as four child gaps, each with one parent, that share a title. Whether that is one need or four is still open. The four gap pages and the tech-gap source page say so.
5. [Resolved, session 6: no renames needed.] ADD Rev C p. 40 names the 12 sub-architectures exactly as session 2's slugs assumed ("Autonomous Systems and Robotics", "Infrastructure Support", "In-situ Resource Utilization Systems", and so on); Rev A's shorter names were superseded. The four segment slugs match the ADD's segment names. All 16 pages now exist under segments/ and sub-architectures/. Original question: Naming of forward links to segments/ and sub-architectures/. Session 2 chose slugs mechanically from the spreadsheet's names (listed in log session 2), e.g. sub-architectures/communications-and-positioning-navigation-and-timing-systems.md. The ADD pp. 21–46 session should reuse them or rename them in one pass. Session 4 addition: the data gaps use a segment the tech gaps don't, Human Lunar Return (HLR; 17 of 25 data gaps). Session 4 forward-links it as segments/human-lunar-return.md, by the same rule. Session 5 addition: the ADD contents (p. 5) confirm the four segment names, so Architecture framework forward-links all four segments/ slugs. For sub-architectures, the ADD revision history says Rev A added "Data Systems and Management, Infrastructure, In-situ Resource Utilization, Robotics" (p. 3). Session 2's slugs come from the tech-gap spreadsheet's names, and three of them differ from these: infrastructure-support, in-situ-resource-utilization-systems and autonomous-systems-and-robotics. The pp. 21–46 session should check the current names on pp. 40–44 and rename in one pass if needed.

Session 3 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Links and columns the wiki derives".] A derived "Destination" column in the gaps index. The queue asked for "a table of all 57 by rating" without naming columns. gaps/index.md adds a Destination column (Moon, Mars or Both) that the spreadsheet does not have. It is read off the "Moon:", "Mars:" and "Moon/Mars:" labels in each performance target, and the page says so. It also adds a summary by bin and a list by ID group. Keep the derived column, or show only fields the spreadsheet prints? Session 12 addition: ADD Rev C's gap tables print the same labels as icons ("Moon", "Mars", "Moon/Mars") beside each performance target (Appendix D, e.g. p. 208). So the column rests on labels NASA prints in both sources; only the "Both" grouping is the wiki's. Session 12 also added a second derived item. D.1 says "the first two digits are determined by the gap's most relevant sub-architecture" (p. 199) but prints no code table. The gaps index now names a sub-architecture for each of the 12 codes, labeled as the wiki's reading. The basis: in all 57 spreadsheet rows, that sub-architecture is listed first, and every gap in the group lists it. The same question applies: keep it, or show only what the ADD prints?
2. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Wording" (the rendered form). Applied in session 51: the three quotations still hyphenated, on #0605, #0306 and Needs, by phase.] Hyphens in Users Guide quotations. On pp. 12–13 the PDF's font draws hyphens as blanks. The rendered page reads "in depth", "large scale", "crew rated", "dust tolerant", "survive the night", but the text layer has the hyphens ("large-scale", "crew-rated", "dust-tolerant", "survive-the-night"). Session 1 quoted the rendered form on Technology and knowledge challenges, and session 3's gap pages quote the hyphenated form. Which form should the wiki treat as NASA's exact wording? The lint pass should make them consistent. Session 4 addition: the earlier pages are mixed, not split by session. #0301, #0903 and #0505 quote the rendered form ("survive the night", "dust tolerant", "in depth"); #0605 quotes hyphens ("in-depth", "large-scale"). And the text layer itself has "indepth" with no hyphen, so for that word neither layer gives "in-depth". Session 4's data-gap pages quote the rendered form, to match the challenges page they link to.

Session 4 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Page sections" (data-gap pages).] Section list for data-gap pages. SCHEMA lists sections for gap pages only. Session 4 gave data-gap pages sections that follow the spreadsheet's columns: Summary, Description (plus "Data utility" for the four gaps in the white paper's Table Two), Need driver and data type, Target measurement parameters, Current state of data, Impact if data is unavailable, Benefits if data is available, Traceability (objectives and segment), Priority (always "None", with the source's reason), Moon Base relevance, Related pages, Sources. Adopt into SCHEMA, or change?

2. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Links and columns the wiki derives" (codes stay unlinked on data-gap pages).] [Suffixes resolved, session 19, from the source: L is lunar, M Martian, LM both. Still open: link the codes on the 25 data-gap pages?] Objective codes on data-gap pages. The spreadsheet gives objective codes only (e.g. LI-07 L, TH-03 L, SE-05 LM; 20 codes in all). Session 4 printed them unlinked, because the structure of objectives/ isn't decided yet. The data gaps index has a reverse table. The objectives session (lunar objective decomposition) should add titles and links, and say what the L, M and LM suffixes mean. Session 5 addition: the prefixes are now explained. They are the ten goals of ADD Rev C pp. 15–16, listed as "Objective Category" in the acronym list (pp. 291–293), on the new page Objectives: the ten goals. The suffixes L, M and LM are still unexplained. Session 5 made objectives/index.md a goals page; the objectives session can extend it or split individual objectives into their own pages. The data-gap pages were not edited. Session 16 addition: titles done, suffixes still open. The lunar decomposition spreadsheet gives the wording of 52 objectives, including all 17 lunar codes the data gaps cite. They are on Lunar objectives, with the data gaps in a column, and the data gaps index links there. The data-gap pages still print the codes unlinked. Neither the sheet's key nor the ADD explains the suffixes. The evidence (Lunar objectives):

   • What the lunar sheet uses: L (17) and LM (35), never M.
   • What the data-gaps sheet uses: M for Mars-only codes. Two LM codes are cited by both lunar and Mars data gaps.
   • The wording doesn't track the suffix. Eight LM objectives name neither body, and two L objectives name Mars.

   "L lunar, M Mars, LM both" fits how the codes are used, but no source says it. The Mars decomposition session should check whether the LM codes recur there. Link the codes on the 25 data-gap pages now, or leave them? Session 19, the suffixes answered from the source: "Superscript text indicates the applicability to Lunar (L), Martian (M) or both (LM)" (Moon to Mars Objectives, p. 6, PDF checked). The 2023 strategy document says the same (PDF p. 18). All 52 suffixes in the lunar sheet and the three Mars codes in the data-gaps sheet match the 2022 document (the wiki's check). One exception: ADD Rev C writes "TH-04-M" (p. 38) for the objective marked TH-4 LM in 2022; the wiki records it and doesn't explain it. Both objectives pages now say so (Objectives; Lunar objectives). The data-gap pages still print the codes unlinked; that part of the question stands.

3. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: no SCHEMA.md rule; applied in session 51 on the DN-015 L page, the data gaps index and the spreadsheet's source page. NASA's spreadsheet stores the range as plain text, "10-6 - 102 g" (cell H16, sheet "Rev C Data Gaps", no superscript formatting; the file was opened on 2026-10-01). 10⁻⁶ to 10² g is labeled the wiki's inference.] Lost exponents in DN-015 L. The extracted text gives the ejecta mass range as "10-6 - 102 g". It is probably 10⁻⁶ to 10² g with the superscripts lost, but the xlsx wasn't opened. The DN-015 L page prints it as extracted. The ADD Rev C Appendix E session (pp. 262–290) should check the rendered PDF and correct it. Session 14 addition: the ADD doesn't settle it. Its DN-015 L table prints "mass (10-6 - 102 g)", and no superscripts are visible on the rendered page (ADD Rev C, p. 279, PDF checked at page resolution). The wiki still prints the range as extracted. Opening the xlsx cell, or asking the project lead, could settle it.

Session 5 (2026-10-01)

1. Slips inside ADD Rev C. Three places where the ADD disagrees with itself or reads oddly. All were checked against the PDF. The wiki records each as printed and doesn't correct the source.

   • "(LS)" or LI. The goals table labels Lunar Infrastructure "(LS)" (p. 16). The acronym list has "LI: Lunar Infrastructure" (p. 292), and every objective code seen so far uses LI (LI-03 L, and LI-05 L to LI-09 L on the data-gap pages). The wiki uses LI and notes the p. 16 label on Objectives: the ten goals. Session 19: the 2022 and 2023 objectives documents both print "Lunar Infrastructure (LI)" (2022 p. 9; 2023 PDF p. 26, PDF checked), so "(LS)" stands alone.
   • Section number for the recurring tenets. p. 16 says "Section 3.4 assesses how the architecture addresses these recurring tenets". The contents (p. 6) and the body (p. 83) number it 3.5; 3.4 is "Element Definition and Pre-Formulation" (p. 82).
   • A garbled sentence in the Executive Summary. "NASA also refined its architecture definition tasks, including capturing three new results that will shape the future of results" (p. 9). The wiki quotes it as printed and doesn't guess what the three results are. The pp. 71–104 session (Section 3.1, "Summary of Key Definition Tasks", p. 74) or the Appendix C session (completed definition tasks, p. 192) may identify them.

   Also, not a slip: the revision table dates Rev C 12/12/2025 (p. 4), while the file name says 20251211. The wiki gives 12/12/2025 as the release date.

   Session 6 additions, pp. 21–46 (all checked against the PDF):

   • The three element tables disagree. The Section 2.3 table (pp. 45–46) omits the Lunar Nuclear Fission System and numbers every later element one lower than the contents (Lunar Surface Cargo Lander 2.3.8 / B.3.8 … SLS 2.3.14 / B.3.14). The contents (pp. 5, 7), the headings and the Foundational Exploration table (pp. 31–32) put the fission system at 2.3.8 and SLS at 2.3.15. Names vary too: "Lunar Nuclear Power System" (p. 31) against "Lunar Nuclear Fission System"; "Gateway Crew-Capable Configuration" (pp. 26, 31) against "Gateway"; "Exploration EVA Systems" against "Exploration EVA System" (p. 5 and the heading). Appendix B mapping numbers differ by table: Gateway Logistics Element B.3.4.1.1 (p. 26), B.3.4.2.1 (p. 31), B.3.4 (p. 45); Human Landing System B.3.5.1 (p. 26), B.3.5 (pp. 31, 45). The wiki follows the contents and headings (Elements). The Appendix B session should check the B.3 sub-section numbers.
   • A dangling cross-reference. p. 29 refers to "the Communications & Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (C&PNT) sub-architecture (Section 2.2.2)", but Section 2.2 has no numbered subsections (contents, p. 5).
   • A copied sentence. Foundational Exploration's "Use Cases and Functions" (p. 28) says the mappings "for all elements and assets in the human lunar return are available in Appendix B", repeating the Human Lunar Return wording (p. 25).

   Session 7 additions, pp. 47–70 (checked against the PDF where noted):

   • SLS mapping number. The SLS one-pager's "Functional Mappings" box reads "B.3.14" (p. 68, PDF checked). That is the SCaN networks' number (p. 64). The contents (p. 7), both segment tables and the Appendix B heading "B.3.15 Space Launch System" (p. 165) give B.3.15. The wiki uses B.3.15.
   • The dangling "Section 2.2.2" again. The SCaN one-pager says "see Section 2.2.2 for the C&PNT sub-architecture" (p. 64), the same unresolvable reference as p. 29.
   • Spelling. The Gateway airlock's partner is "Mohammad Bin Rashid Space Centre" in the text and "Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre" in the partner label (p. 54, PDF checked). The HDL description has "until the it is ready" (p. 56). Both are quoted as printed.

   Session 8 additions, pp. 71–103 (PDF checked where noted):

   • The "three new results" (p. 9), two readings. Section 3.1.3 dates three completed key definition tasks "At the 2025 Architecture Concept Review": MD-02 (Humans to Mars target state), MD-04 (loss-of-crew risk methodology) and MD-05 (crew to the Mars surface). A fourth, LD-103 (lunar surface communications), says "In 2025" (p. 75). The three dated to the 2025 ACR may be the "three new results", but LD-103 makes four from 2025, and the ADD doesn't say. Appendix C (p. 192) may settle it (Key definition tasks). Session 9: the companion 2025 Architecture Update doesn't settle it either. Its Executive Summary lists three 2025 developments: two new elements, the data gaps, and the narrowed Mars crew range (Update, p. 3). These are not definition-task results, and it never uses the phrase.
   • Guiding questions. "Where do we go? Why do we go? Where do we go? How do we get there and back? What do we do there? Who is involved?" (p. 73, PDF checked). "Where" appears twice and "When?" is missing, though both figures (pp. 73–74) include WHEN.
   • "to for". MD-04's summary reads "uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative risk assessment to for evaluating risk" (p. 75).
   • Tenet wording. The Section 3.5 headings differ from the p. 83 table for RT-3, RT-4, RT-6, RT-7 and RT-8. Only RT-4's difference is one of substance: "science and engineering activities within planned mission durations" (p. 83) against "science, research, and technology development activities within planned mission duration" (p. 92). Both are on Recurring tenets.
   • Data gaps and segments. "The data gaps span all architecture segments" (p. 81), but the data-gap spreadsheet's Segment column lists no gap under Sustained Lunar Evolution (HLR 17, FE 2, H2M 6). Recorded on Segments and the data gaps index.
   • "The figures below" (p. 80): the page has one figure, and p. 81 none (PDF checked).
   • Session 9: Appendix C's MD-05 entry ends "will increase challenge to architecture feasibility" with no period, and p. 194 starts a new section (p. 193, text layer only).
   • One name for two things. The p. 78 figure calls the weighted sum of the four metric scores the "Gap Overall Prioritization Rating". Appendix D.1 defines the "Overall Prioritization Rating" as "The gap's location in the prioritized list of gaps" (p. 199). D.2's text says its list includes "rating, overall prioritization rating, and priority bin", but its table has only "Priority Rating" and "Priority Bin" (p. 200, PDF checked). The wiki treats the published 1–57 as D.1's rank (gaps index).
   • Names. p. 87 has "the Consultative Committee on Space Data Standards" and "the Interagency Operations Working Group"; p. 100 has "the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems". p. 97 names the "One Small Step to Protect Human Heritage Space Act"; its footnote's link has "…Human Heritage in Space Act". p. 101 reads "in the content of future architectural assumptions". All quoted as printed.

   Session 10 addition, guiding questions: the "Architecture Definition" white paper, which the ADD cites for this topic (p. 74), lists the six questions once each in its introduction: "Why we go? Who is involved? Where we go? What we do there? When do we go? How we go?" (p. 1, PDF checked). But its own Key Takeaways list five, "Who, What, When, Why, and How?", without "Where" (p. 6, PDF checked). The wiki records both and doesn't correct the ADD's list (source page).

   Session 12 additions, Appendix D pp. 199–230 (PDF checked):

   • "FN-C-107M". The #0102 table prints the function ID without its space (p. 205); the tech-gap spreadsheet has "FN-C-107 M". Noted on #0102.
   • "Sustained Lunar Exploration". The #0601 and #0603 targets say "Sustained Lunar Exploration" in the ADD's own tables (pp. 229–230), not only in the spreadsheet. The Segments field in both says "Sustained Lunar Evolution", as does the ADD's segment heading (p. 33). Noted on #0601 and #0603.

   Session 14 additions, Appendix E pp. 262–290 (PDF checked):

   • Running header. p. 262, the first page of Appendix E, carries the running header "Catalog of Technology Gaps". Later pages say "List of Data Gaps" (pp. 263–264) and "Catalog of Data Gaps" (pp. 265–289).
   • DN-005 L's title in the list. E.1 prints "Optical images from lunar surface at the lunar south pole" (p. 263); the table on p. 269 and the spreadsheet have "from the lunar surface". Noted on DN-005 L.
   • Data gaps and segments, again. Session 13 asked whether Appendix E says anything about Sustained Lunar Evolution. It doesn't. Its 25 segment icons give Human Lunar Return 17, Foundational Exploration 2 and Humans to Mars 6, the same as the spreadsheet, and none under SLE (pp. 265–289). So "The data gaps span all architecture segments" (p. 81) is not borne out by the ADD's own tables either. Recorded on the data gaps index.

   Session 15 additions, Appendices A and B pp. 105–135 (PDF checked):

   • "Section 3.4" again. A.2 says "Section 3.4 captures assessments of the architecture's adherence to the recurring tenets" (p. 107), the same slip as p. 16. They are in Section 3.5.
   • A sentence without a verb. "These categories one or more goals surrounding specific subjects, each of which is comprised of multiple individual objectives" (p. 107). Quoted as printed on Objectives.
   • "explorations constraints" (p. 107).
   • A promised deep dive. Appendix A's introduction promises "a deep dive into human exploration considerations for lunar and Mars exploration" (p. 105). A.3 is one paragraph pointing to the white papers (p. 107), and p. 108 is the Appendix B divider. Not a slip, but the text promises more than the appendix holds.
   • Wrong appendix letter. B.1's note on "deep space" and "Mars vicinity" ends "Appendix E captures additional terms and definitions" (p. 109). Appendix E is the data gaps; terminology is Appendix F (contents, p. 7).
   • Spellings in the lists, quoted as printed: "assets(s)" (UC-A-401 L, UC-A-402 L), "payloads(s)" (FN-P-401 L, FN-P-402 L), "at assets in cislunar asset(s)" (UC-U-725 L).
   • Mars use cases (written up in session 23 on Mars use cases): UC-U-713 M is printed above UC-U-712 M, and UC-U-808 M reads "related to presence of Earth life on at various distances from landing sites the Martian surface" (p. 134).

   Session 22 additions, Appendices C and F pp. 186–198 and 291–304 (PDF checked):

   • The "three new results" (p. 9), closer but not settled. The open-task table's "Result" column has exactly three ACR25 entries: MD-02 "Down-Select", MD-04 "Methodology", MD-05 "Decision" (p. 194). LD-103, the fourth "In 2025" task, has no row there. That fits reading the three results as MD-02, MD-04 and MD-05, but the ADD never links the Executive Summary's phrase to them.
   • Section numbers. C.1's sub-sections run C.1.1, C.1.2, C.1.2.1, then C.1.1.1, C.1.1.2, C.1.1.3 (pp. 186–188).
   • MD-06's category. Printed "05 Human Systems & Habitation" (p. 194). Everywhere else 04 is Human Systems & Habitation and 05 is Surface Systems & Infrastructure.
   • MD-07's two titles. "Mars Primary Surface Power Generation Technology" in its C.2.2 heading (p. 192), "Primary Mars Surface Power Generation Technology" in the table (p. 194), as in Section 3.1.3 and the white paper's Table One respectively.
   • The roadmapping terms, defined twice in one document. Appendix C's table (p. 186) and Appendix F (pp. 298, 300, 302) differ. "Trade space" is "The range of options for a particular area of the architecture" in Appendix C (as in the white paper and p. 72), but "An exploratory part of the systems engineering process that identifies and analyzes potential solutions …" in Appendix F. F's "Legacy Decision" says "the architecture decision roadmapping process", Appendix C's "the architecture roadmapping process", and p. 74 "prior to the initial publication of the Architecture Definition Document". Smaller wording differences in "definition task", "key definition task" and "priority key definition task". Same document, same date: SCHEMA's newer-wins rule doesn't apply. The Glossary records all of them.
   • Other terms the body and Appendix F word differently: Function ("that are necessary", F p. 297, against p. 17), Exploration Asset ("including payloads" dropped, F p. 297, against p. 21), Segments (singular in F, p. 301), and Characteristics and Needs (one entry on p. 17, two in F).
   • "Large cargo". The revision table says Rev A.1 "removed 'large cargo' from glossary" (pp. 3–4). Rev C's glossary has "Large Cargo" (p. 298).
   • Duplicates in F.2. "Consumables" and "Logistic Items" have the same definition (pp. 296, 298).
   • F.3's missing "medium". "terms like small, medium, and large" (p. 304); no table uses "medium". One table has "Exploration Assets" where the others have "Large Exploration Assets".
   • Spellings. F.1 has "ESPIRIT" (p. 291) against "ESPRIT" in the Gateway pages (p. 53), and "Lunar Communication Relay and Navigation Systems" (p. 292) against "Lunar Communications Relay …" (p. 64). F.1 expands PNT as "Positioning, Navigation, and Timing" (p. 293); F.2's entry is headed "Position, Navigation, and Timing" (p. 299). "For lunar other, non-utilization assets" (Small Asset, p. 301). "Crew Earth Ascent Vehicle Strategy" (p. 196) is quoted as printed.
   • B.1's pointer again. Appendix F doesn't define "Mars vicinity", the term B.1 sends readers to "Appendix E" for (p. 109).

   Session 23 additions, the Mars lists pp. 135–147 (PDF checked pp. 137–139, 141, 145, 147). The Mars spreadsheet prints every one of these the same way:

   • Order and numbering. FN-X-201 M and FN-X-202 M are printed before FN-X-113 M (p. 139); there is no FN-H-122 M (p. 138), FN-T-301 M, FN-T-303 M, FN-T-304 M, FN-U-102 M, FN-U-205 M, FN-U-308 M or FN-U-401 M.
   • Spellings, as printed: "continency" (FN-A-109 M, p. 142); "in space as (demonstration)" (FN-A-113 M, FN-A-114 M, p. 143); "payloads(s)" (FN-P-401 M, p. 140); "Martian vicinity" (FN-T-312 M, p. 136) where the rest say "Mars vicinity"; "surface-born resources" (UC-I-201 M, p. 133).
   • Near-duplicates: FN-C-307 M and FN-C-308 M (the same action, one marked "(demonstration)"); FN-X-108 M and FN-X-113 M (two short-duration crew-health functions).

   Session 24 additions, Appendix B.3 to B.5 (pp. 148–185; PDF checked pp. 158, 166, 169, 175, 176):

   • The cargo lander's table carries the HDL's name. Under "B.3.9 Lunar Surface Cargo Lander", the table is headed "Human-Class Delivery Lander" (p. 158). Its four functions are the cargo lander's in the sheet.
   • "UC-A-" for "UC-C-". B.5.2.2 "Communications and Positioning, Navigation, and Timing" prints UC-A-204 L to UC-A-207 L (p. 169). The titles are those of UC-C-204 L to UC-C-207 L, and the lunar list has no UC-A-204 L to UC-A-207 L.
   • B.3 and B.5 disagree on two functions. B.3 maps FN-A-103 L to the Pressurized Rover (p. 162) and FN-A-105 L to the Lunar Utility Rover (p. 160). B.5 lists both as unallocated under every use case they serve (pp. 168, 177–178). See question 64.
   • Names. "B.3.2 Exploration EVA Systems" (p. 149) against the one-pager's "Exploration EVA System" (p. 48). "Lunar Communications Relay and Navigation Systems" (pp. 163–164), as in F.1.
   • FN-I-207 L's title, shortened. B.5 prints "Conduct additive/subtractive manufacturing …" (p. 172). The B.2.2 list has "Conduct regolith-based additive/subtractive manufacturing …". The sheet's Unallocated list has the same short form (question 43).
   • Text layer only. Under UC-T-301 L the text layer repeats "FN-T-207 L". The rendered page shows one row, and the table's footer bar is blank (p. 175).

Session 6 (2026-10-01)

1. [Handled, sessions 6–28, by SCHEMA's newer-source rule: the March 2026 fact sheet wins, and every topic-page mention of Artemis III is attributed to Rev C or notes the change (session 28's check). Still open: no source says what becomes of Gateway, its reference missions, or legacy decisions LD-02-L and LD-04-L. Session 29 searched the 2026 documents and the Moon Base pages: they mention Gateway only for the PPE and HALO hardware and in the fact sheet's "Original Plan" column. Marked in session 29.] Contradiction: is Artemis III the first crewed landing? ADD Rev C (Dec 2025) says the Human Lunar Return segment "continues with Artemis II, which sends crew around the Moon, and Artemis III, which lands crew on the lunar surface" (p. 24). The March 2026 fact sheet's updated plan makes Artemis III a "Human landing system & EVA suit test mission in Earth orbit — 2027" and Artemis IV "Astronauts return to the lunar surface — early 2028" (Going back to the Moon, pp. 1–2). Per SCHEMA the newer source wins, and Human Lunar Return says so. Related: the HLR next steps include "initial Gateway deployment (OP-6)" (p. 25), and three of the nine lunar reference missions involve Gateway or its NRHO orbit (pp. 25, 30). The Users Guide reports Gateway's PPE going to SR-1 Freedom (p. 2), but no source read so far says what happens to those reference missions. Nothing to decide unless the project lead knows of a post-March-2026 architecture document that restates the segment plan. Session 7 addition: Gateway's own section (ADD pp. 50–54) describes two configurations and seven components (PPE, HALO, Lunar I-Hab, Gateway Logistics Element; then Canadarm3, Lunar View, Crew and Science Airlock), with ESA, JAXA, CSA and UAE partners. Two newer sources repurpose its hardware. The PPE goes to SR-1 Freedom (Users Guide, p. 2). HALO power and avionics hardware goes to Northrop Grumman's Moon Base surface demonstrations, "following NASA's shift from an orbital-focused lunar strategy to one centered on surface operations" (Moon Base update, Aug 2026). The fact sheet's updated Artemis plan mentions no Gateway visit; its original plan had two. No source read so far says Gateway is cancelled, and the Gateway page says only what the sources say. Rev C's p. 67 C&PNT figure also still shows Gateway as a relay. Session 8 addition: Section 3 repeats the pre-2026 plan in four places.

   • RT-3's mission examples have Artemis III "conducting an initial lunar landing and EVA" and "Crewed Gateway and lunar surface missions" (p. 90).
   • RT-1 lists a dielectric analyzer selected "for Artemis III" (p. 85). It also says "Artemis II will include a Canadian astronaut" (p. 85); Artemis II has since flown.
   • Two legacy decisions rest on Gateway: LD-02-L "NASA will deploy Gateway in lunar orbit" and LD-04-L "Crewed lunar orbital operations will use NRHO" (pp. 74–75).
   • LD-05-L sets "an annual cadence" (p. 75). The fact sheet signals "semi-annual crewed lunar missions after Artemis V" (p. 1).

   None of the newer sources mentions a definition task or says a decision was revisited. Key definition tasks and RT-3 quote both sides without inferring. Session 9 addition: the companion 2025 Architecture Update (Dec 2025) says the same. Artemis II "will pave the way for the next time astronauts walk on the lunar surface, during Artemis III" (Update, p. 18). Artemis II has since flown (April 2026). The Update also gives a source-made reason why Rev C may lag later plans: "While conversations continue about potential changes in implementation, the products represent the contracted baseline and will be updated and responsive to changes if and when they occur" (Update, p. 3). It doesn't say which changes it means. Session 27 addition, NASA's architecture web pages (fetched 2026-10-01):

   • Supplemental Reading still describes Artemis III as "the first of the Artemis missions to bring crew to the lunar surface" and says it "will mark humanity's first return to the lunar surface in more than 50 years" (source page). No editor's note.
   • Components carries an "Editor's Note": "NASA is updating this webpage to align with the latest Artemis program updates announced in February and National Space Policy initiatives announced in March" (source page). Its segment text is the 2024 overview's, lightly edited, so the wiki treats it as pre-restructuring. NASA itself says the page lags, which supports reading other undated architecture pages the same way.

2. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Page sections" (segment and sub-architecture pages), "Links and columns the wiki derives" (derived counts) and "Naming and scope" (H2M).] Section lists for segment and sub-architecture pages. SCHEMA lists sections for gap pages only (and open question 18 proposes a list for data-gap pages). Session 6 used:

   • Segment pages: Summary, Description, Objectives, Reference missions, Elements, Areas of future work, Gaps that list this segment, Changes since Rev C, Moon Base relevance, Related pages, Sources. "Moon Base relevance" always says no source maps segments to phases.
   • Sub-architecture pages: Summary, NASA's description (quoted in full), In the segments, Elements, Technology gaps, Moon Base Phase 1, Related pages, Sources. "Moon Base Phase 1" uses the Users Guide's own grouping (p. 9), so it is a source-made link, not the wiki's.
   • Derived counts. The segment and sub-architecture pages count and list tech gaps and data gaps by segment and by sub-architecture, read off the spreadsheets' columns and labeled as derived (compare open question 16). Each sub-architecture page also flags the gaps the Users Guide names for Phase 1.
   • Codes. The new pages use H2M for Humans to Mars, as the ADD acronym list and the data-gap spreadsheet do. The gaps index uses "HM"; the lint pass could align it. Session 29: aligned. The gaps index now uses H2M; the tech-gap sheet spells the segment names out, so no quoted wording changed.

   Adopt these into SCHEMA, or change?

Session 7 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Page sections" (element pages), "One home per topic" (Changes since Rev C) and "Links and columns the wiki derives" (joins).] Section list for element pages. SCHEMA lists sections for gap pages only (compare open questions 18 and 23). Session 7 used: Summary, NASA's description (the one-pager's "Element Description", quoted in full), At a glance (section and page, implementing program with the line printed beneath it, functional mappings, segments, sub-architecture, revision added, header-image caption), any element-specific sections (Gateway's components; SCaN's partners, interoperability, network evolution and the p. 67 figure; HLS configurations; SLS variants), Gaps that mention it, Changes since Rev C, Moon Base relevance, Related pages, Sources.

   • "Gaps that mention it" lists only gap rows whose text names the element, found by searching both spreadsheets. Same-subject gaps that don't name it are marked as the wiki's pairing.
   • "Changes since Rev C" quotes newer sources and does not infer. For example, the Artemis fact sheet's silence on Gateway is reported as an omission, not a cancellation.
   • "Moon Base relevance" separates three kinds of link: the source names the element; the wiki matches by name or wording (open question 11); same subject but not matched.

   The header-image captions are quoted because some carry facts (the AxEMU suit, the HLS providers, three LTV prototypes, the JAXA/Toyota Lunar Cruiser). Adopt into SCHEMA, or change?

   Session 24 addition: a new section, "Functions (ADD Appendix B.3)", after "At a glance" or the element-specific sections. It holds a table of the element's B.3 functions (ID, title, segments, Moon Base Phase 1 functional gap?), and the differences from the lunar spreadsheet's allocation. The Lunar Utility Rover and Lunar Nuclear Fission System pages keep theirs under "The 2025 Architecture Update", where session 9 put them. Titles are the ADD's B.2.2 titles, as on Lunar functions. B.3 prints the same titles in the places read, apart from print: for example, B.3.8 has "payload(s)" in FN-P-401 L (p. 158), where B.2.2 and B.3.7 have "payloads(s)".

2. Which SLS upper stage and mobile launcher are now standard? The March 2026 fact sheet says NASA's February 2026 plan "standardizes the SLS upper stage and mobile launcher configuration" (p. 1) but doesn't say which. ADD Rev C has Block 1 with the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage "planned for Artemis II and III", Block 1B with the Exploration Upper Stage, and EGS's "transition to the Mobile Launcher 2, which enables Space Launch System Block 1B missions" (pp. 49, 68). Neither source settles whether Block 1B and Mobile Launcher 2 remain in the plan. The SLS and EGS pages record Rev C's position and the open change. Does the project lead know of a public source that states the standard configuration? (None is in sources/.) Session 33: mostly answered by a briefing. ESDMD's Ignition deck (March 2026) says "NASA is replacing the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) with the Centaur V"; "The first Centaur V mission may be Artemis IV or Artemis V"; a new stage adapter is needed; and "Changes to Mobile Launcher 1 to relocate umbilicals is also under assessment" (slide 15). Its Artemis poster is captioned "Standardized Block 1 configuration" (slide 2), and the 2028 landing plan has "Block 1 Crewed (ICPS or Centaur V)" (slide 18). The deck doesn't mention Block 1B or Mobile Launcher 2, so whether they stay in the plan is still not stated (Ignition deck 1). Session 60 note: searched all of sources/ for "Block 1B", "Mobile Launcher" and "Centaur": no source newer than Rev C mentions Block 1B or Mobile Launcher 2. Two more sources speak of standardizing without naming a configuration: NASA's undated Artemis page ("Beginning with Artemis IV, NASA is standardizing the configuration of the SLS") and the Administrator's note of 22 May 2026 ("Standardize the SLS architecture to the greatest extent possible"). Now on the SLS page.

Session 8 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Page sections" (tenets; no Moon Base relevance section on concept pages).] Where the recurring tenets live, and their page sections. SCHEMA puts recurring tenets in concepts/ but doesn't say how. Session 8 made a hub, concepts/recurring-tenets.md, plus one page per tenet, concepts/rt-1-international-collaboration.md to concepts/rt-9-commerce-and-space-development.md. The hub is now the one home for the tenet wording; objectives/index.md links to it instead of keeping its own table. Tenet pages use: Summary (with NASA's wording of the tenet), The assessment, Future considerations, Changes since Rev C (only where a newer source bears on it: RT-1, RT-3, RT-9), Related pages, Sources.

   • No "Moon Base relevance" section. SCHEMA asks for one only on gap, data-gap and element pages, and no Moon Base source mentions the tenets.
   • Gap links are labeled as the wiki's. See open question 11.

   Adopt into SCHEMA, or change (for example, one page for all nine)?

2. [Mostly resolved, session 22, from ADD Appendix C: the tasks without an ID are open key definition tasks, and the ADD's MD-01 to MD-12 match the white paper's Table One. Still open: LD and MD are expanded nowhere, and LD-101 and LD-102 are undated. Marked in session 29.] A page for key definition tasks. Session 8 created concepts/key-definition-tasks.md from ADD Section 3.1.3: the seven legacy decisions, the seven completed tasks, a table of the nine tasks the gap spreadsheet cites, and changes since Rev C. It is meant to be extended by the Appendix C session (pp. 186–198: fuller write-ups and the open tasks). Three things it can't settle:

   • LD and MD. The ADD pages read don't expand "LD" and "MD". The page reads them as lunar and Mars from the titles, and says so. The acronym list (pp. 291–293) has no entry for either (checked by search).
   • Tasks without an ID. The spreadsheet also names definition tasks without an ID (for example "Crew Communications Architecture" under #0103, "Logistics Carrier and Interface Strategy" under #0701). The Appendix C session should say whether they are open key definition tasks.
   • Date. The ADD calls legacy decisions "decisions NASA made prior to the initial publication of the Architecture Definition Document" (p. 74) but doesn't date LD-101 or LD-102.

   Session 10 addition: the "Architecture Definition" white paper doesn't expand LD or MD either. Its Table One gives titles for twelve Mars priority tasks, MD-01 to MD-12, and shades the four that ADD Section 3.1.3 lists as completed. Three are new to the wiki: MD-03 (mission cadence), MD-06 (crew to Mars vicinity) and MD-08 (loss-of-mission risk methodology). The page now has a section on the table (Key definition tasks). The Appendix C session should compare it with the ADD's own MD-01 to MD-12 list (near p. 194).

   Session 12 addition, tasks without an ID: the ADD prints them in the Definition Tasks column of its own gap tables (e.g. #0103, p. 206). D.1 defines that column as a "List of architecture definition tasks with strong relevance to the gap" (p. 199). So the ADD counts them as architecture definition tasks. Whether they are key ones is still for the Appendix C session.

   Session 22, from Appendix C: the tasks-without-ID point and the Table One comparison are settled. The wiki's search of the sheet finds 38 distinct titles without an ID; all are in Appendix C's "Open Architecture Key Definition Tasks" (pp. 194–197), so they are key definition tasks. The ADD's MD-01 to MD-12 match the white paper's Table One word for word, with the same four done. Still open: LD and MD are expanded nowhere (Appendices C and F included), and LD-101 and LD-102 are undated. See Key definition tasks.

Session 9 (2026-10-01)

1. Contradiction: Mars crew to the surface, "no fewer than six" or "up to six"? Both documents agree on a floor of four crew for the initial Humans to Mars missions. They differ on six:

   • ADD Rev C twice says "with consideration for no fewer than six (6) crew to enhance mission capability and/or provide risk reduction" (pp. 76, 193). Appendix C adds, "A minimum of six crew — while providing crew task redundancy and mission and utilization opportunity — will increase challenge to architecture feasibility" (p. 193).
   • The 2025 Architecture Update twice says "up to six", and adds, "While the agency has not formally constrained the maximum number, sending a larger number of crew (e.g., seven, eight, or more astronauts) introduces new challenges" (p. 13).

   Both are from December 2025 and were released together, so SCHEMA's newer-wins rule doesn't apply. Each document is consistent with itself, so neither looks like a one-off typo. Key definition tasks tables both and picks neither. The ACR24 Mars crew-complement white paper (then queued; read in session 25) predates the decision, so it may not settle it. Which wording should the wiki treat as NASA's? Session 10 addition: the "Architecture Definition" white paper (Dec 2025) doesn't settle it. It calls the MD-05 outcome "a reduction of the trade space to a viable or plausible range" (p. 5), which fits either wording. Session 25 addition: the 2024 crew-complement paper doesn't settle it. It gives no number at all, above or below, and predates the decision (Mars Crew Complement Considerations; Key definition tasks). Session 39 addition: the January 2026 industry and academia workshop showed the outcome in the ADD's wording, "with consideration for no fewer than six (6) crew", word for word (slide 15; source page). That is one more use of the ADD's wording, a month later, but a briefing ranks below both December documents, so it doesn't settle the question. The March 2026 international deck (a near-copy) is for its own item. Session 40 addition: the same January deck has a third wording on slide 31, which opens the briefing on the decision: "with consideration for the minimum to be up to six (6) crew for enhanced mission capability and/or provide risk reduction", with the bullet "Documented in Revision C of the Architecture Definition Document". Its chart (slide 34) says "4 to 6 crew balances opportunity, risk, and complexity" and "7 + crew present significant architecture feasibility challenges for initial missions". The wiki doesn't read slide 31 as reconciling the ADD and the Update: it is one more wording, from a briefing that ranks below both, and the same deck prints the ADD's on slide 15. The March international deck carries slide 31's line too (searched). Does slide 31's "the minimum to be up to six" tell the project lead which reading NASA means, or should the wiki keep tabling all three? (Key definition tasks) Session 41 addition: that international deck is dated 24–25 February 2026 on every slide (uploaded in March). It shows both wordings to the international partners too: the ADD's on slide 15 and "the minimum to be up to six (6)" on slide 36, with other co-presenters (Rob Bayt, Steve Bowen) (source page). Nothing new for the question.

2. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Citing" (PDF pages, "PDF p.").] Citing a document whose printed page numbers differ from its PDF pages. In the 2025 Architecture Update, printed numbers are one lower than PDF pages. The cover is unnumbered, and the contents page is printed "1". The Update's own cross-reference "see the feature on page nine" (PDF p. 14) uses the printed number. SCHEMA's citation rule doesn't cover this. Session 9 cited PDF page numbers, which match the [page N] markers in the text file and the raw PDF. It said so on the source page, whose contents table gives both. The ADD is unaffected (its PDF and printed numbers are the same). Adopt PDF numbers as the rule, or cite printed numbers? Session 17 addition: a second document. The ACR24 paper "Lunar Mobility Drivers and Needs" has five PDF pages printed 1, 3, 4, 5, 6: there is no printed page 2 (PDF checked). Session 17 cited PDF pages and gave both on the source page. Pages that cite it say "PDF p." where the two differ. Session 19 addition: a third document. In the 2023 Strategy and Objectives Development document, printed numbers are one lower than PDF pages: the cover is unnumbered and the foreword, on PDF p. 2, is printed "1". Its contents page uses printed numbers. Session 19 cited PDF pages, wrote "PDF p." on every page that cites it, and gave both on the source page. Other papers cite it by printed number: the 2024 priority-science paper's "appendix C … p. 46" is PDF p. 47. Session 21 addition: two more. In the 2023 executive overview printed numbers are one lower than PDF pages; in the 2024 executive overview they are two lower (cover and contents unnumbered). Session 21 cited PDF pages, wrote "PDF p." everywhere, and gave both on each source page (2023, 2024). The 2023 overview's own contents page also has four numbers that match neither (its "6 architecture segments" is printed p. 5). Five documents with an offset now follow the PDF-page practice: the 2025 Update, the 2024 mobility paper, the 2023 strategy document and the two overviews. Adopt it as the rule?

3. [Standards part settled, session 50, from the sources: NASA's standards page is held and names the nine; see the session 50 addition. The trade-space page is held (session 27). Still open: the "Lunar Logistics and Mobility" paper, and the lists of papers and references not held (sessions 10, 11, 17, 18, 21) with session 27's ask about Revision B and "Key Mars Architecture Decisions".] Linked material the 2025 Architecture Update names but the sources don't hold.

   • The 2024 white paper "Lunar Logistics and Mobility" (Update, pp. 5, 9), cited for why the Lunar Utility Rover was added. No file in sources/ has that title. The nearest are 2024-06-acr24-lunar-mobility-drivers-and-needs ("Lunar Mobility Drivers and Needs") and a NextSTEP "Appendix R: Lunar Logistics and Mobility Studies" page linked from the industry-engagement page (not fetched). The wiki doesn't treat either as the same document.
   • NASA's "Mars architecture trade space" page (www.nasa.gov/moon-to-mars-architecture-mars-architecture-trade-space, Update, p. 13).
   • NASA's International Deep Space Standards page (https://www.nasa.gov/international-deep-space-standards/, Update, p. 15). It would name the standards behind the Update's nine badges and the ADD's "nine … standards" (p. 99).

   Fetch any of them? (Compare open question 10.)

   Session 10 addition: the two ACR25 white papers read in session 10 name more material that isn't in sources/ (checked against sources/manifest.csv by name):

   • The two papers "Architecture Definition" supersedes: "Systems Analysis of Architecture Drivers (2022)" and "Key Mars Architecture Decisions (2023)" (p. 1).
   • Earlier white papers cited by "Why Moon and Mars?" (pp. 8–9): "Mars Transportation" (2022), "Why Artemis Will Focus on the Lunar South Pole Region" (2022), "Mars Communications Disruption and Delay" (2023), "Round-trip Mars Mission Mass Challenges" (2023), "Surface EVA Architectural Drivers" (2023), "Human Health and Performance" (2023), and "Mars Mission Abort Considerations" (2023).

   Both lists are on the two papers' source pages. Fetch any of them?

   Session 11 addition: the three NTRS white papers cite more material not in sources/ (checked by name against sources/manifest.csv and sources/text/pages/):

   • Lunar power paper: "Why Artemis Will Focus on the Lunar South Pole Region" (2022), also cited by "Why Moon and Mars?".
   • C&PNT paper: "NASA's Lunar Communications and Navigation Architecture" (2023), "Mars Communications Disruption and Delay" (2023, also cited by "Why Moon and Mars?"), the LunaNet Interoperability Specification Version 5, and the International Communication System Interoperability Standard.
   • Planetary protection paper: all 19 references, including NASA's Planetary Protection Handbook (NASA/SP-20240016475), NPR 8715.24, NASA-STD-8719.27, and the journal paper on knowledge-gap closure that its knowledge gaps rest on (reference 17).

   The lists are on the three source pages.

   Session 11 correction: the "Mars architecture trade space" page above may already be held. sources/text/pages/moon-to-mars-architecture-mars-architecture-trade-space.md was fetched 2026-10-01 from https://www.nasa.gov/moon-to-mars-architecture-mars-architecture-trade-space/. The web-pages session should confirm it is the page the Update means and drop it from this list.

   Session 17 addition, "Lunar Logistics and Mobility": NASA's White Papers page (sources/text/pages/moontomarsarchitecture-whitepapers.md, fetched 2026-10-01) lists no paper by that title in any year. Its 2024 list has "Lunar Mobility Drivers and Needs" and "Lunar Surface Cargo"; its 2023 list has "Lunar Logistics Drivers and Needs". The 2024 mobility paper's subject fits the Update's reason for the Lunar Utility Rover: the LTV and Pressurized Rover are "primarily for crew transportation, with limited cargo mobility functions", and mobility assets need "sufficient autonomy and/or tele-robotic operation capability to operate throughout the year" (PDF pp. 1, 4). But the title differs, and the wiki still doesn't identify the two (source page). Is "Lunar Logistics and Mobility" the mobility paper under a loose name?

   Session 17 addition, more material not held (checked by name against sources/manifest.csv and sources/text/pages/):

   • ACR24 lunar papers' references: "Lunar Logistics Drivers and Needs" (2023), "Lunar Site Selection" (2023), "Why Artemis Will Focus on the Lunar South Pole Region" (2022, already listed), ADD Revision A, the 2022 National Cislunar Science & Technology Strategy, and the July 2024 Civil Space Shortfall Ranking.
   • Papers the 2024 lunar papers promise but NASA's White Papers page doesn't list: "a white paper on NASA's lunar surface strategy" (mobility paper, PDF p. 4; cargo paper, p. 5) and a paper on "cargo return needs" (cargo paper, pp. 3, 5). Were they published under other titles, or not at all?

   The lists are on the four source pages.

   Session 18 addition, the other four ACR24 papers (checked by name against sources/manifest.csv and sources/text/pages/). Not held:

   • "Exploration Lessons Learned from the Space Station" (2023 white paper)
   • ADD Revision A
   • SMD's draft "Implementation Plan for a NASA Integrated Lunar Science Strategy in the Artemis Era"
   • the science reports the papers quote: the planetary science decadal Origins, Worlds, and Life, The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon, the Artemis III Science Definition Team report, and the MEPAG Tiger Team report on human Mars missions
   • NASA's ELSI material: the "Artemis, Ethics, and Society" workshop synthesis, "Lunar Landing and Operations Policy Analysis", "Policy Questions Framework for Missions", and the Space Sustainability Strategy

   The references the papers share with the wiki's held sources (the 2022 objectives, the 2023 strategy document, the architecting-from-the-right and international-engagement pages) are all queued. The lists are on the four source pages.

   Session 21 addition, the 2023 white papers: the 2023 executive overview lists all 13 papers published with Rev A in January 2024 (PDF pp. 8–9). None is among the sources (checked by title against sources/manifest.csv). Several are cited by papers the wiki holds; the full list, with who cites each, is on the source page. "Key Mars Architecture Decisions" would settle which seven Mars decisions were identified in 2023 (see question 54). All twelve 2024 papers are held.

   Session 27, from the 15 architecture web pages:

   • [Resolved: held.] The "Mars architecture trade space" page. The Update prints www.nasa.gov/moon-to-mars-architecture-mars-architecture-trade-space (p. 13); the held file was fetched from https://www.nasa.gov/moon-to-mars-architecture-mars-architecture-trade-space/, the same address (source page).
   • "Lunar Logistics and Mobility": new evidence, not settled. The Workshops page's February 2025 industry and academia set has "White Paper Briefing: Lunar Mobility and Logistics", file 2025-ia-workshop-wp-lunar-logistics-and-mobility.pdf; the international set has "White Paper Briefing: Logistics, Mobility, and Cargo". Both: "key considerations and needs for lunar cargo, mobility, and logistics solutions". The other briefings in those sets carry 2024 paper subjects. So in early 2025 NASA briefed a white paper under nearly the Update's name, and the international title adds "Cargo", the subject of the other 2024 lunar paper. That fits the Update's name being a loose label for the 2024 mobility paper (perhaps with the cargo paper), but no page says which paper was briefed. The industry page's NextSTEP "Appendix R: Lunar Logistics and Mobility Studies" is a solicitation, not a paper (Workshops page; Industry Engagement page).
   • The standards page: two addresses. The Update gives https://www.nasa.gov/international-deep-space-standards/ (p. 15); Supplemental Reading links internationaldeepspacestandards.com. Neither is fetched.
   • More material listed but not held. The ADD documents page links Revisions A and B, the 2022 ADD (NTRS 20230002706), the 2022 executive overview and the 2022 and 2023 mapping tables; the White Papers page links the five 2022 and twelve 2023 papers; the Workshops page has 77 links (chart sets, posters, animations, a recording) from 2023 to 2026; the Mars Architecture Studies page links seven historical studies (1989–2014). Each source page has its list. Under the agreed source plan, workshop and historical material is tier 3, "on request". Of all of these, Revision B (the ADD behind the 2024 tables and white papers) and "Key Mars Architecture Decisions" (2023; question 54) would settle the most open points. Fetch either?

   Session 42 addition, "Lunar Logistics and Mobility": the February 2025 "Architecture Updates" decks brief NextSTEP-2 "Appendix R: Lunar Logistics and Mobility Studies" under the headings "Logistics and Mobility: Request for Proposals" (partners) and "Logistics and Mobility: BAA App R" (industry), with its dates to a source selection on 22 January 2025. They call it a solicitation for studies, never a paper, so the Update's 2024 paper is still unidentified; the white-paper briefing item may settle it (source page). The same decks' list of 2024 papers has no "Lunar Logistics and Mobility" (slide 17), and the Architecture 101 deck's 31 papers of 2022–2024 have none either (slide 19).

   Session 46 addition, the briefing itself: not settled. Both February 2025 decks (the file the Workshops page lists as "Lunar Mobility and Logistics", and the partners' copy) are titled "Lunar Logistics, Mobility, and Cargo" on their title slides. They brief two papers, "Lunar Surface Cargo" and "Lunar Mobility Drivers and Needs", and name three by their own titles, the third "Lunar Logistics Drivers and Needs (2023 White Paper)" (slide 2). None of the three is "Lunar Logistics and Mobility". So the 2025 Update's title matches no paper in any list read, and the nearest match is a 2025 briefing of the two 2024 lunar papers together. The wiki still treats the Update's paper as unidentified (briefing's source page). Should the wiki read the Update's title as a loose name for the two 2024 papers briefed together?

   Session 49 addition: not settled; and one 2023 paper is now held. The February 2024 logistics briefing is titled "Lunar Logistics Drivers & Needs", the 2023 paper's name, and its slides say nothing of mobility (source page). So it doesn't identify the Update's "Lunar Logistics and Mobility" either. The session 21 note above ("None is among the sources") no longer holds for one paper: the file 2024-02-15, listed as a February 2024 briefing, is the 2023 "Lunar Site Selection" paper itself (question 92).

   Session 50 addition: the two linked pages.

   • The standards page: settled. NASA's page (source page) lists nine standards in two groups, "Moon to Mars Standards" (Avionics, Communications, Power, Software) and "Gateway Standards" (Docking, ECLSS, Rendezvous, Robotics, Thermal), the Update's nine badges by name and group (the wiki's comparison; "ECLSS" for "Life Support"). The two addresses are a list and a document host: ADD Rev C's own footnote 35 (p. 99) cites internationaldeepspacestandards.com, which hosts eight of the nine documents the nasa.gov page links (Docking's is on nasa.gov). Not settled by the page: which "Two additional standards include identified forward work" (ADD p. 99), two of the nine or two more. The page shows nine and marks none (RT-7).
   • "Lunar Logistics and Mobility": not settled, more evidence. The NextSTEP-2 Appendix R page (dated 19 August 2024) says NASA "has identified two gaps in its lunar architecture: an integrated surface logistics architecture and uncrewed surface mobility systems for lunar surface assets", and points to "NASA's 2024 Architecture Concept Review White Papers (Lunar Surface Cargo, Lunar Mobility Drivers and Needs) and 2023 Architecture Concept Review White Paper (Lunar Logistics Drivers and Needs)" (source page). These are the three papers the February 2025 briefing names (slide 2). No NASA list read so far has a paper titled "Lunar Logistics and Mobility". Since the Update cites "Lunar Surface Cargo" separately (p. 9), the only other 2024 paper on the subject in any list is "Lunar Mobility Drivers and Needs" (the wiki's reading). The Update's reason for the Lunar Utility Rover ("previously identified needs for additional autonomous lunar surface mobility capabilities", p. 5) shares its subject with the page's "uncrewed surface mobility systems"; no source links the rover to Appendix R. Should the wiki now read the Update's title as the 2024 mobility paper, or keep it unidentified?

Session 10 (2026-10-01)

1. Contradiction: the one-way light-time delay at Mars, up to 24 or 22 minutes?

   • "Why Moon and Mars?" white paper: "a one-way light-time communications delay between 4 and 24 minutes" (p. 2), and "4-24 Minutes" in its p. 3 graphic. The ACR25 lunar power white paper says the same: "the one-way light-time communications delay can range from 4 to 24 minutes" (lunar power white paper, p. 5; session 11: read in full, PDF checked).
   • 2025 Architecture Update: "missions to Mars will need to account for a one-way time delay of up to 22 minutes" (p. 13), quoted on Humans to Mars and Key definition tasks.

   The Update and the "Why Moon and Mars?" paper are both dated December 2025 by their download paths, so the newer-wins rule doesn't apply. The lunar power paper's file name carries no date, but the Update lists it among the six 2025 white papers (Update, p. 17). In ADD Rev C, a search for "one-way", "light-time" and "time delay" finds no Mars figure. The wiki quotes each where it is used, notes the difference on Why Moon to Mars, and picks neither. Which should the wiki treat as NASA's figure? Session 21 addition: a third source with 24. The 2024 executive overview's infographic gives Mars a "~4-24 minutes" one-way delay (2024 overview, PDF p. 4; transcribed on Why Moon to Mars). It is a year older than both, so it doesn't settle the question; it does make the Update's 22 the odd one out. Session 40 addition: the January 2026 workshop's Mars crew briefing gives "4-24 Minutes" for Mars on its "One-Way Light-Time Delay" graphic (slide 33; source page). The briefing that explains the crew decision, whose written reasoning in the Update says "up to 22 minutes", uses 24. A briefing ranks below the December documents, so this doesn't settle it either.

Session 11 (2026-10-01)

1. The lunar power paper's "integrated surface power element": is it the Lunar Nuclear Fission System? ADD Rev C says "In 2025, NASA added a nuclear fission power system into its lunar architecture" (p. 58). The ACR25 lunar power white paper, from the same review cycle, never names that element and speaks in the future tense: "Alongside that strategy, the agency will initiate an integrated surface power element into the architecture to realize functional capabilities for external power augmentation" (p. 5), and NASA "is initiating new power elements into the architecture" (p. 6). The same paper reports "In August of 2025, acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy announced plans to develop a nuclear power system for the lunar surface" (p. 5), without naming it. The wiki doesn't identify the "integrated surface power element" with the fission system, and doesn't tie the August 2025 announcement to Lunar Reactor-1 (fission element; source page). Possibly the paper was written before the element was added, but no source says so. Does the project lead know?

   Session 22 addition: ADD Appendix F defines "Integrated Element" as "A portfolio that comprises multiple individual assets and provides a suite of integrated capabilities, offering flexible, evolvable concepts to achieve NASA's Moon to Mars Objectives" (p. 298). The only use the wiki's search finds in the ADD body is the SCaN Networks one-pager, "this integrated element" (p. 64). The fission system's page doesn't use it. So the paper's "integrated surface power element" may mean a portfolio of power assets rather than one system, but the paper doesn't cite the glossary, and the wiki doesn't decide it (Glossary).

2. Contradiction: are the LTV and the Pressurized Rover Human Lunar Return elements? The lunar power white paper says "During the Human Lunar Return segment, the architecture relies on self-sufficient elements (i.e., with no need for external power sources) — such as the Human Landing System, Lunar Terrain Vehicle, Pressurized Rover" (p. 1). ADD Rev C maps both rovers to Foundational Exploration only; its Human Lunar Return element table (p. 26) lists the HLS but neither rover. The C&PNT white paper is vaguer: hubs such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover serve "During Human Lunar Return and for the early Foundational Exploration segment" (p. 2). The paper carries no date, and both belong to the 2025 cycle, so the newer-wins rule doesn't settle it. The wiki keeps the ADD's mapping and notes the paper's wording on the LTV, Pressurized Rover and Power Systems pages. Is "such as" loose wording, or a different segment assignment? Session 21 addition: an older source puts both rovers, and more, in Human Lunar Return. The 2023 executive overview says "In the first edition of the Architecture Definition Document, NASA established nine elements for the Human Lunar Return segment. In 2023, NASA added six new elements to the segment": the three Gateway Expanded Capability components, the Human-Class Delivery Lander, the Pressurized Rover and the Lunar Terrain Vehicle (2023 overview, PDF p. 10). Rev C maps all six to Foundational Exploration (pp. 26, 31–32, 53). The overview is two years older, so SCHEMA's rule prefers Rev C, and the wiki follows it (Elements). The power paper's wording may echo the 2023 assignment, but no source says the mapping changed between Rev A and Rev C. Did Rev A map these elements to Human Lunar Return?

3. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "One home per topic".] Where the three NTRS white papers' content lives, and a new concept page. Following session 10's "one home per topic":

   • Power went into a new section on Power Systems, with fission points on the fission element.
   • C&PNT went into a new section on C&PNT Systems, with network points on SCaN Networks.
   • Planetary protection had no home, so session 11 created concepts/planetary-protection.md. Its sections: Summary; What it is; What Viking and Apollo did; Who is involved; Architectural implications (with Table One); What NASA is doing; NASA's policy framework (Table Two); Where it appears in the architecture; Related pages; Sources. Like the other concept pages, it has no "Moon Base relevance" section. It quotes the Users Guide's Mars-forward line, which is the guide's own link.

   Gap pages got a "Related pages" bullet for each paper on their subject (#0101, #0102, #0103,

   0301, #0304, #0702, #0803, #0901, #0903, #1202), each labeled "the pairing is the wiki's".

   No "Moon Base relevance" section changed: none of the three papers mentions the Moon Base, and the two lunar ones are framed by segment. Adopt, or move planetary protection elsewhere?

4. Slips inside the three NTRS white papers. Recorded on each source page as printed, not corrected (PDF checked):

   • Lunar power. It lists its architecture drivers three ways: four in the opening, four headings, and three in the takeaways, which drop multi-region support and "Mars" (pp. 2–3, 6). The 2025 Architecture Update calls it "Integrated Lunar Power Considerations" (p. 17).
   • Planetary protection. The footer reads "202 Moon to Mars Architecture Concept Review" on pp. 5–6. Table Two's "NPD 8700.1F" doesn't match reference 2's s=1E link. The handbook is "NASA/SP-20240016475" here and "NASA-HDBK-20240016475" in gap #1202.
   • C&PNT. Two figures are captioned "Figure One" (pp. 3, 5). LCRNS is spelled "Lunar Communications Relay Navigations Systems" (p. 2). Its three example technology gaps carry 2024 titles that aren't in the Dec 2025 spreadsheet (p. 6). The wiki matches them by subject to #0101, #0103 and #0102; the ACR24 technology-gaps session should check. Session 17, checked: the ACR24 technology-gaps paper prints only five gap titles (Table 1, p. 4, PDF checked). One is on the same subject: "High-bandwidth, High-reliability Surface-to-Surface Communications", which is #0103's Dec 2025 title word for word, not "High Rate Comm Across the Lunar Surface". It prints no PNT or deep-space title. So "2024 titles" was session 11's guess from the reference, and it doesn't hold for the one title that can be checked. The C&PNT paper's three names match neither list; they may be informal names. The wiki keeps its subject match, labeled (C&PNT source page). Session 21, checked: a second 2024 title. The 2024 executive overview prints #0101 as "Lunar Surface Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Systems for Extreme Temperature, Radiation, and Dust" (2024 overview, PDF p. 13). That isn't the C&PNT paper's "Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) for In-Orbit and Surface Applications" either. Two of the paper's three names are now checked against a 2024 title, and neither matches.

Session 12 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Naming and scope".] The ADD's pointer to TechPort. SCHEMA keeps TechPort out of the wiki. ADD Rev C itself prints a boxed note above its prioritized gap list: "Note: For additional current state-of-the-art details, refer to the NASA TechPort at the link below: https://techport.nasa.gov/" (p. 200). Session 12 read the rule as excluding TechPort data, not NASA's own reference to it. So the note is quoted once, on the gaps index, with "This wiki quotes the note and uses no TechPort data". Nothing from TechPort was read. Keep the quotation, or drop it?

Session 13 (2026-10-01)

1. Contradiction: which function does #1107 pair with UC-U-501 M? Gap #1107 (Cryogenic Fluid Transfer) lists seven use case–function pairs. Six are the same in both sources. The seventh differs:

   • Tech-gap spreadsheet (Dec 2025): "UC-U-501 M -- FN-U-502 M".
   • ADD Rev C (Dec 2025): UC-U-501 M paired with "FN-U-501 M" (p. 258, PDF checked).

   ADD Appendix B titles the two functions: FN-U-501 M, "Recover propellant from assets on the Martian surface (demonstration)", and FN-U-502 M, "Transfer propellant into storage asset(s) and/or transportation asset(s) on the Martian surface (demonstration)" (p. 147, PDF checked). Both documents are from December 2025, so the newer-wins rule doesn't apply. The wiki picks neither. The #1107 page keeps the sheet's list and notes the ADD's pair.

   • For the Mars decomposition session: in the Mars objective decomposition spreadsheet (sources/text/docs/2025-12-2025-mars-objective-decomposition/full-decomp-split.csv, rows for FN-U-501 M to FN-U-504 M), both functions sit under UC-U-501 M. This is a pointer only; the wiki hasn't read that source yet. It suggests either pairing is a valid one, but not which one the gap's authors meant.
   • Scale: this is the only content difference in the 57 tables. The other difference is a missing space, "FN-C-107M" under #0102 (open question 21).
   • Session 15, the use case's title: ADD Appendix B.2.3 lists UC-U-501 M as "Demonstration of recovery of excess propellant from tanks of previous asset(s) on the Martian surface" (p. 133, PDF checked). Its key word is "recovery". It doesn't say which function the gap's authors meant. Noted on #1107.
   • Session 23, the Mars decomposition read: its "Functions to Use Cases" sheet puts all four, FN-U-501 M to FN-U-504 M, under UC-U-501 M. So both the sheet's pairing and the ADD's are ones the decomposition makes. It still doesn't say which one #1107 means. (#0503 cites UC-U-501 M with "All FN", and #1106 pairs it with FN-U-504 M.)

   Which pairing should the wiki treat as NASA's?

Session 14 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Wording" (show both; derived counts follow the spreadsheet).] Contradictions: two data-gap tables in ADD Appendix E differ from the spreadsheet. All 25 tables were compared field for field with the data-gaps spreadsheet, and every page was checked in the PDF. 23 match exactly. Two don't:

   • DN-016 L (seismic activity), data type. ADD Rev C prints "In Situ Measurement" (p. 280); the spreadsheet has "In Situ Monitoring". This changes a derived count: the data gaps index has In Situ Monitoring 2 (DN-012 L, DN-016 L) by the sheet, 1 by the ADD. Both documents agree that DN-012 L, the radiation gap, is "In Situ Monitoring". The gap's own wording uses "monitoring": its description asks for "continuous monitoring of moonquakes" and "real time feedback", and its title ends "characterization and monitoring".
   • DN-007 L (in-situ water ice), wording only. The first sentence of "Impact if Data is Unavailable" reads "a critical input for both ISRU system design and architecture analysis and identification of potential water reserve sites" in the ADD (p. 271) and "a critical input for ISRU system design, architecture analysis, and identification of potential water reserve sites" in the sheet. The meaning is the same.

   Both documents are from December 2025, so SCHEMA's newer-wins rule doesn't apply. Following the #1107 practice (open question 37), the wiki keeps the sheet's text and values on the pages, tables and counts, and notes the ADD's beside them: DN-016 L, DN-007 L and the data gaps index. Which should the wiki treat as NASA's, and should the wiki prefer the ADD over the spreadsheet in general when the two disagree? Session 40 addition: the January 2026 workshop's list of lunar data gaps gives DN-016 L "In Situ Measurement", the ADD's value (slide 47; source page). A briefing ranks below both, so the counts still follow the sheet.

2. [Resolved, sessions 23–24: the queue was re-cut at p. 148, both items are done, and all of Appendix B is read. Nothing in Appendix B is left to read, so the re-cut needs no decision. Marked in session 29.] Two queue items' page ranges don't match their labels. The queue has "ADD Rev C pp. 105–135: Appendix A (rationale) and Appendix B lunar use cases and functions" and, later, "ADD Rev C pp. 136–185: Appendix B Mars use cases and functions". By the ADD's contents, as recorded on its source page, lunar use cases start on p. 110, lunar functions on p. 117, Mars use cases on p. 127 and Mars functions on p. 135. So pp. 127–135, the Mars use cases and the first page of Mars functions, fall inside the "lunar" item, and the Mars item misses them. Session 14 did not change the queue. The next session is asked to read what its range holds and note where the Mars material went. Should the queue be re-cut at p. 126/127 instead?

   Session 15, what the range held and where it went:

   • pp. 105–108: Appendix A (105–107) and the Appendix B divider (108).
   • pp. 109–127: B.1 and the two lunar lists. The lunar functions end on p. 127, above the B.2.3 heading.
   • pp. 127–134: B.2.3, 148 Mars use cases. All read; PDF checked on pp. 130–134.
   • p. 135: the first 20 Mars functions, FN-T-101 M to FN-T-104 M and FN-T-201 M to FN-T-216 M. The B.2.4 list runs to p. 147.

   What session 15 did. It wrote up the lunar material only, and did not create a Mars use-case page. A Mars use-case page with no Mars functions would split material that the Mars session will rebuild alongside the Mars decomposition spreadsheet. The queue wasn't changed. The Mars session should start at p. 127, not p. 136.

   Noted for that session (wiki's check of the IDs):

   • Counts by letter: T 25, G 6, H 15, X 10, P 6, M 10, C 18, D 1, A 18, I 3, U 36. There are no Logistics (L) use cases.
   • Numbers skipped within a group: UC-T-305 M, UC-U-101 M, UC-U-304 M and UC-U-707 M.
   • Printed out of order: UC-U-713 M comes before UC-U-712 M (p. 134). The text layer also misplaces UC-X-109 M, after UC-M-201 M, but the rendered page has it in order (p. 130).
   • UC-U-501 M's title: see open question 37.

   Session 23, the Mars item done and the queue re-cut: the Mars item's range, pp. 136–185, also ran past the Mars lists. The Mars functions end on p. 147. Pages 148–185 are B.3 (element function mappings, from p. 148: "Human Lunar Return segment elements form the basis for satisfying functional needs"), B.4 and B.5, all lunar. Following SCHEMA's rule for unfinished items, session 23 ticked the item as "pp. 127–147" (the Mars use cases from p. 127 included) with the Mars spreadsheet, and inserted a new item for pp. 148–185. The Mars material is on Mars use cases and Mars functions.

   Session 24: the new item's range held what session 23 said. B.3 is on pp. 148–165, B.4 on p. 166, B.5 on pp. 167–184, and p. 185 is blank. All of Appendix B is now read.

   Still for the project lead: is the re-cut queue right?

Session 15 (2026-10-01)

1. Contradiction: the Users Guide's FN-P-102 L has another function's title. The Moon Base Users Guide (April 2026) lists, among its Phase 1 functional gaps under power, "FN-P 102 L" with the title "Store energy in the south pole region on the lunar surface." (p. 10, PDF checked). In ADD Rev C (December 2025), PDF checked on p. 121:

   • FN-P-102 L is "Generate power at multiple distributed locations outside of the south pole region on the lunar surface".
   • The guide's title is FN-P-202 L, word for word.

   Either the ID or the title is wrong in the guide, but the sources don't say which. SCHEMA's newer-wins rule would favor the guide, but the ADD is the document that defines the IDs. The wiki doesn't decide:

   • The Phase 1 page keeps the guide's entry as printed, with a labeled note.
   • Lunar functions flags both rows: FN-P-102 L as "Named by the guide, but with FN-P-202 L's title", and FN-P-202 L as matching the guide's title.
   • The Phase 1 count stays 31 by the guide's IDs.

   The capability target "Demonstrate 5 kW power generation and storage" (p. 10) was not used to guess the guide's intent.

   The same comparison found smaller differences in four other entries, recorded on Lunar functions:

   • FN-A-201 L: the guide drops "and/or cislunar space"
   • FN-H-102 L and FN-X-103 L: "moderate" for the ADD's "mid"

   Which function does the guide mean: FN-P-102 L (distributed generation) or FN-P-202 L (South Pole storage)?

   Session 16 addition, from the lunar decomposition spreadsheet. None of this settles the question:

   • Titles. The sheet gives both IDs the ADD's titles.
   • Key groups. The key names P 100 "Generation" and P 200 "Storage".
   • Use-case pairing. UC-P-101 L (South Pole) pairs FN-P-101 L with FN-P-202 L, and UC-P-102 L (distributed sites) pairs FN-P-102 L with FN-P-201 L. So the storage IDs run the other way from the generation IDs.
   • #0901. Through "All FN", #0901 covers all four (gaps index).
   • Allocation. Both FN-P-102 L and FN-P-202 L are "Unallocated" in the FE+ sheet, so the Phase 1 allocation count (9 of 31 unallocated) is the same either way.

2. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Page sections" (Appendix B list pages) and "Links and columns the wiki derives".] Page format for the Appendix B list pages, and where Appendix A went. SCHEMA doesn't cover either (compare open questions 18, 23, 24, 26).

   • List pages. Lunar use cases and Lunar functions reproduce the ADD's lists in full. They are grouped under letter headings that the ADD doesn't print (the wiki's reading of p. 40), with derived counts. Each adds columns built from other sources, all source-made links:

     • tech gaps citing the ID (from the sheet)
     • the Users Guide's Phase 1 group (functions page only)

     Sections: Summary, How this page is built, At a glance, one section per letter, comparison notes, Related pages, Sources. No "Moon Base relevance" section, as on other concept pages; the Phase 1 column does that job. The tables are built so the lunar decomposition session can add parent-objective and use-case columns.

   • A hub page, Use cases and functions, for B.1, the ID format and where the IDs are used.

   • Appendix A has no page of its own. A.1 (the three pillars and the Venn figure) and A.3 went on Why Moon to Mars. A.2 (63 objectives in four categories) went on Objectives. This follows "one home per topic".

   Adopt, or change (for example, a separate page per sub-architecture's functions, or an appendix-a page)?

Session 16 (2026-10-01)

1. What the lunar decomposition spreadsheet leaves out or doesn't define. Recorded on its source page, as printed. The workbook itself wasn't opened; everything comes from the extracted CSVs.

   • No characteristics and needs. The key's index lists seven sheets that aren't in the file, including "C&Ns", "HLR Use Cases to C&Ns" and "FE+ C&Ns to Objectives". ADD B.1 says the tables trace "from objectives through characteristics and needs to use case and functions" (p. 109), but the published sheets map use cases straight to objectives. Were the C&N sheets left out on purpose? Does a fuller version exist?
   • "FE+" is not defined in the file or the ADD. The wiki uses the label as printed and doesn't equate it with the Foundational Exploration segment.
   • "FORWARD WORK". The first row of both allocation sheets reads "FORWARD WORK"; which cells it spans is lost in extraction. Science/Research Payloads and Tech Demos are "FORWARD WORK" in both asset tables. The wiki reports the label and doesn't say what it covers. Opening the xlsx would show the merged cell's span.
   • An unlisted sheet. full-decomp-merged.csv appears identical to the FE+ merged sheet (same line count, same first, middle and last rows, same counts).
   • Split and merged sheets differ. The split sheets have more rows; in the one place checked, the split sheet repeats five rows. The wiki builds from the mapping sheets instead.

   Session 23, the Mars workbook: it has the same gap. Its key lists four C&N sheets ("C&Ns", "Use Cases to C&Ns", "C&Ns to Objectives", "Full Decomp - Merged No CNs") that the file doesn't contain (source page). The ADD's own revision history says a Mars C&N layer existed: Revision B (December 2024) "Added Mars characteristics, needs, use cases, and functions for Transportation and Habitation, Mars Infrastructure, and Operations objectives" (p. 4; Revision C then added Mars use cases and functions for the science goals). The 2024 Mars architecture table among the sources (2024-12-acr24-mat-final-20241031-2/, a later queue item) has a use-cases-to-c-ns sheet (seen in a search, not read). So the C&Ns were published in 2024 and left out of the December 2025 workbooks. Why isn't stated anywhere.

   Session 24, "FORWARD WORK" against the ADD: ADD B.4 says "Science/research payloads and technology demonstrations are forward work" and "Utilization payloads function mappings are forward work and will appear in subsequent revisions" (p. 166). That explains the sheet's "FORWARD WORK" against "Science/Research Payloads" and "Tech Demos". It doesn't show what the label at the top of the matrices covers. The element mappings themselves are not called forward work in the ADD. B.3 opens with "Human Lunar Return segment elements form the basis for satisfying functional needs. These element mappings help identify functional gaps that must be addressed in follow-on segments" (p. 148). The ADD's mappings match the sheet's closely (Lunar function allocation).

   Session 26, the 2024 mapping tables: answered in part.

   • The C&Ns were published, in 2024. NASA's 2024 Lunar and Mars Objective Mapping Tables hold 133 lunar and 115 Mars C&Ns, with their objectives and use cases. They are now on Lunar characteristics and needs and Mars characteristics and needs, as 2024 context.
   • The 2025 links look like the 2024 links with the C&Ns taken out. For ten objectives checked (six lunar, four Mars), the 2025 use cases under an objective are exactly the use cases under its 2024 C&Ns (2024 lunar table). Not checked for the rest.
   • "FORWARD WORK". The 2024 matrices open with "ASSET MAPPING TO SCIENCE/RESEARCH PAYLOADS AND TECH DEMOS IS FORWARD WORK". That suggests the 2025 label covers payloads and tech demos only, but the 2025 file doesn't say so.
   • "FE+". The 2024 table labels the same asset columns "FE", and "FE+" doesn't occur in it. Still not a definition.

   Still open: why the December 2025 workbooks list C&N sheets and leave them out, and whether the 2024 C&Ns are current. Rev C's B.1 still says its tables trace "through characteristics and needs" (p. 109).

   Ask NASA, or leave as recorded?

2. Mismatches between the lunar decomposition spreadsheet and other sources. None is corrected; each is noted where it appears.

   • OP-4 in HLR. The ADD says Artemis I tested "supporting ground infrastructure (OP-4)" (p. 25), but the HLR sheet has no OP-04 LM; it is FE+ only (Lunar objectives).
   • #0307's use cases. The gap lists UC-U-719 L to UC-U-722 L with no function; the FE+ sheet gives each of them functions. The other gaps' no-function use cases are function-less in the sheet too (Lunar objectives).
   • SE-05 LM. Six lunar data gaps cite it and are needed in HLR (data-gaps sheet), but the HLR decomposition doesn't include SE-05 LM.
   • UC-T-103 L and FN-C-103 L. After Revision B.1 removed FN-T-103 L from UC-T-103 L (ADD p. 4), the FE+ sheet pairs UC-T-103 L, a cislunar assembly use case, with FN-C-103 L, communications between assets on the lunar surface. Nothing explains the pairing.
   • HLR allocations dropped in FE+. Orion: FN-U-205 L. HLS: FN-H-101 L, FN-L-301 L and FN-U-401 L. FN-L-301 L becomes "Unallocated", and it is a Moon Base Phase 1 functional gap (Lunar function allocation).
   • Print slips. "maintaing" in eight function titles (the ADD has "maintaining"); FN-I-207 L without "regolith-based" in one list; the key's "Logisitcs" and "Repositioining".

   Session 24, against ADD Appendix B.3 to B.5:

   • The HLR allocations dropped in FE+ are dropped in the ADD too. B.3 drops the same four pairs between its HLR and FE tables (Orion pp. 160–161, HLS pp. 154–156). It also drops a fifth, HLS FN-U-414 L, which the sheet doesn't have in HLR at all.
   • Three HLR pairs are in the ADD only. B.3's HLR tables put FN-D-102 L and FN-P-303 L on Gateway (p. 151) and FN-U-414 L on HLS (p. 155). None of the three is among the sheet's 58 HLR functions.
   • Six FE+ pairs are in the sheet only: CLPS FN-T-402 L, Exploration Ground Systems FN-G-106 L and FN-G-107 L, HLS FN-U-414 L, Initial Surface Habitation FN-D-101 L, LTV FN-A-103 L. The Communication/PNT Asset has no ADD table.
   • FN-I-207 L's short title is in the ADD's B.5 too (p. 172), so it isn't only the sheet's slip.
   • The rest of the comparison is in question 64.

   Session 26, against the 2024 lunar table (Lunar function allocation):

   • The three HLR pairs only the ADD has are all in the 2024 table: Gateway FN-D-102 L and FN-P-303 L, HLS FN-U-414 L. The 2025 sheet dropped them; the ADD's B.3 kept them.
   • HLS's three HLR-only pairs in the 2025 sheet (FN-H-101 L, FN-L-301 L, FN-U-401 L) were in the 2024 HLR "Unallocated" column. Orion's FN-U-205 L is HLR-only in 2024 too.
   • UC-T-103 L with FN-C-103 L is already in the 2024 table, with FN-T-106 L and FN-T-217 L and without FN-T-103 L.
   • FN-I-207 L's short title is the 2024 title, used throughout the 2024 workbook.

   Are any of these worth raising with the architecture team?

3. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Page sections" (Appendix B list pages; objective and C&N pages).] Page format for objective pages. SCHEMA lists objectives/ but no sections for it (compare open questions 18, 23, 24, 26, 41). Session 16 made two pages rather than one per objective:

   • Lunar objectives: for each goal, a table of objectives (wording, in HLR or not, data gaps), then a table of use cases (HLR, FE+ adds).
   • Lunar function allocation: the assets, FE+ allocation by asset, the 76 unallocated functions, the Phase 1 join, HLR against FE+.

   Not done, and left for a later session: objective and function columns on Lunar use cases, and asset columns on Lunar functions. Rewriting those PDF-checked tables by hand risks errors, so session 16 added pointers instead. Adopt this format, split objectives into one page each, or add the columns?

Session 17 (2026-10-01)

1. Figures that don't agree, in and around the 2024 lunar cargo and mobility papers. All were checked against the PDFs and are recorded as printed; none is corrected.

   • A figure cited to a paper that doesn't contain it. The 2025 "Why Moon and Mars?" paper says "NASA projects annual logistics needs of 5,000 to 6,000 kgs for four crew members operating on the lunar surface for approximately 30 days", citing "Lunar Surface Cargo" (its p. 5, reference 31). The cargo paper's text has no such figure. It gives 2,500 to 10,000 kg a year in the body (p. 2) and 2,000 to 10,000 kg in the takeaways (p. 6), and its Figure 1 plots "Logistics for 4 Crew" by duration with no printed values. The nearest wording is in the mobility paper: "four crew members operating on the lunar surface for approximately 30 days", and logistics of "2,000 to 6,000 kg per crewed surface mission" (PDF p. 3). Noted on Why Moon to Mars and the cargo source page. Where does the 5,000–6,000 kg come from?
   • A reference mission or an element? The cargo paper says "NASA has developed a conceptual reference mission for cargo lander delivery that will be added to the ADD in revision B" (p. 1). Revision B added the Lunar Surface Cargo Lander element (ADD Rev C, p. 3), and Rev C's seven Foundational Exploration reference missions include none for cargo delivery. The paper's mission wording is close to the element's description (ADD p. 59). The wiki doesn't equate them, and doesn't use the paper's 500–12,000 kg gap as the element's capacity (Lunar Surface Cargo Lander).
   • Inside the mobility paper: "approximately 1,500 kg" of planned surface cargo capability (PDF p. 1) against 800 kg for the LTV and for "the surface mobility capability expressed in the architecture" (PDF pp. 3, 5); distances of "50 to 5,000 m" (PDF p. 3) and "5 to 5,000 m" (PDF p. 5); "Lunar Site Selection" called a 2022 paper in the text (p. 1) and a 2023 one in reference 4 and on NASA's White Papers page.
   • Inside the cargo paper: reference numbers 2 and 3 swapped between text and list; the takeaways' "Sustained Lunar Exploration" (p. 6) for the segment its own figures call "Sustained Lunar Evolution" (compare the #0601 and #0603 slip in question 21).

   All are on the two source pages. Worth raising with the architecture team, or leave as recorded?

   Session 49 note: the "Lunar Site Selection" year is settled. The paper itself, now held, has "2023 Moon to Mars Architecture" down its first page and "2023 Moon to Mars Architecture Concept Review" in every footer (source page), so the mobility paper's "2022" in its text is the slip.

2. Is the Mean Earth endorsement current? The 2024 "Lunar Reference Frames" paper reports that a NASA working group "endorsed the Mean Earth lunar reference frame as the standard for initial surface operations, including planning and user location data exchange" and "did not endorse a corresponding orbital standard" (p. 3). ADD Rev C states only that NASA "must define, adopt, and implement lunar reference systems (including reference frames)" and that "U.S. policy on these topics is available" (pp. 65–66). It never names Mean Earth or Principal Axis (search of the text). The policy files it cites aren't among the sources. So the wiki records the endorsement as 2024 and doesn't say it was adopted (C&PNT Systems). Does the project lead know of a source that states the adopted frame?

3. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "One home per topic".] Where 2024 white-paper content goes. SCHEMA says older documents are context and to "say what changed", but not where. Session 17 followed "one home per topic" (compare question 34):

   • One section per paper on the sub-architecture page for its subject: mobility on Mobility Systems, cargo on Transportation Systems, reference frames on C&PNT Systems. The technology-gaps paper went on the gaps index. Each section has a "What changed by Rev C" list, labeled as the wiki's comparison.
   • Element pages (LTV, HDL, Lunar Surface Cargo Lander, CLPS) got a short "In the ACR24 white papers (2024)" section. It gives the 2024 capacities Rev C doesn't print (LTV 800 kg; HDL "0 – 12,000 or 15,000" kg; CLPS task orders 70–475 kg), each marked as 2024 and not known to hold now. The Pressurized Rover got a short section of the same name, with no capacity. These are not "Changes since Rev C", because the papers are older.
   • Gap pages (#0101, #0805, #0806, #0808) got one "Related pages" bullet each, labeled "the pairing is the wiki's", as in session 11. No other gap-page section changed.
   • No Moon Base relevance changed. The papers predate the Moon Base. The cargo paper's 500– 12,000 kg gap is not set against the Users Guide's two-tonne lander target.

   Adopt, or change (for example, keep 2024 material on source pages only)?

   Session 18 addition: the other four ACR24 papers follow the same pattern. Each has a source page and one section on the page for its subject, with a "What changed by Rev C" list:

   • international partnerships on RT-1
   • responsible exploration on RT-6
   • priority science on Utilization Systems
   • humans in space on Why Moon to Mars

   The two science papers had no obvious single home. Priority science went to Utilization Systems because it sets science needs against the architecture, and Rev C's own example for that sub-architecture is frozen-sample return. Humans in space went to Why Moon to Mars because it answers Appendix A's "Why send humans into space?" for science. Each also left a short sourced note elsewhere: the LPS objectives' origin on Objectives, and the pre-formulation figure on Elements and RT-2. One gap page, #1201, got a labeled "Related pages" bullet. No element page changed: the papers say nothing about the elements that Rev C's one-pagers don't already say.

Session 18 (2026-10-01)

1. What does "architecture gaps" mean? The 2024 international partnerships paper defines it: "Architecture gaps (i.e., use cases and functions that do not currently trace to an element)" (International Partnerships, p. 2). ADD Rev C uses the phrase twice without defining it: new systems "fill architecture gaps" (p. 82), and partnerships "address architecture gaps" (p. 84). RT-5 uses "an architecture gap" more loosely, for robotic maintenance (p. 93). Close to the 2024 definition, but not the same words: ADD Appendix B.5, "Unallocated Functions by Use Case" (p. 167, unread); the "Unallocated" marks in the lunar decomposition sheet; and the Users Guide's "functional gaps", which also include functions "that need additional performance to be fully satisfied" (p. 9). None of these is a technology gap or a data gap.

   The wiki quotes the 2024 definition only on RT-1, sets the others beside it as the wiki's comparison, and doesn't apply the definition to Rev C's uses. Should the wiki treat the 2024 definition as what Rev C means? The Appendix B.5 reading (in the Mars item, pp. 136–185) may settle it.

   Session 20 addition: one more meaning, older than all of these. The 2023 strategy document's April 2022 "gap analysis" set the draft objectives "against current and planned Moon to Mars activities" and found "12 objectives gaps". It "acted as an early assessment of NASA's current architecture" (Strategy and Objectives Development, PDF p. 44). Its figure labels them "gaps, partial gaps, or disconnects". The wiki records it on Objectives as neither a technology gap nor a data gap, and doesn't equate it with "architecture gaps".

   Session 21 addition: the executive overviews use the words loosely too. 2023: element initiation reviews whether a concept "provides a solution to needs or gaps identified in the Moon to Mars Architecture", and architecting from the right "identifies technology and capability gaps" (PDF pp. 3, 10). 2024: pre-formulation finds approaches to "fill architecture gaps", the coffee example begins "Upon finding gaps for a lunar coffee maker element", and its figure is headed "FICTIONAL CAPABILITY GAP" (PDF p. 11). Neither defines the term. Nothing changes on the wiki.

   Session 29: B.5 didn't settle it. Session 24 read it (pp. 167–184). It lists unallocated functions by use case but never uses the phrase "architecture gaps" (RT-1). Still open.

   Session 42 addition: a third NASA meaning. At both February 2025 workshops, a slide on Rev B's technology gap appendix reads "Architecture gaps are… …capability areas to enable the architecture (i.e., technologies that need to be matured or invented) …solution-agnostic …published as one-pagers in ADD rev-B (56 total gaps currently)" (Architecture Updates deck, slide 14). There the phrase means the technology gaps, against the 2024 paper's unallocated use cases and functions; the same workshop's Architecture 101 deck labels the coffee-maker need an "Architectural Gap" (slide 11). Recorded on RT-1; nothing else changes. The sources use the phrase at least three ways.

   Session 43 addition: a fourth, from the same workshops. ESDMD's "Architecture Gap Definition" slide: "Gaps can be identified two ways: Unfilled Use Cases/Functions; Performance gap with only partially addressed capability" (FE gaps deck, slide 2). That is the 2024 paper's meaning plus performance gaps, the same two halves as the Users Guide's "functional gaps" (p. 9), fourteen months earlier. Recorded on RT-1; see also question 65.

2. Names, dates and slips in the four ACR24 papers read in session 18. All are recorded as printed on the source pages, PDF checked; none is corrected.

   • One workshop, or two names? The responsible-exploration paper's 2023 "Artemis, Ethics, and Society Workshop" (p. 2; reference 6, "Artemis, Ethics, and Society: Synthesis from a Workshop") and ADD Rev C's "NASA's 2023 Artemis and Ethics Workshop" (p. 98). Same year; the wiki records both and doesn't equate them (RT-6).
   • The Artemis III Science Definition report's date. The humans-in-space paper heads it "NASA Document [2015]" (p. 3); its link's file name is …/uploads/2015/01/artemis-iii-science-definition-report-12042020c.pdf (p. 4). The wiki doesn't date the report.
   • Titles. The priority-science paper is "Priority Science Objectives Enabled through NASA's Moon to Mars Architecture" on the PDF and "Priority Science Enabled through Architecture" on NASA's White Papers page. It calls the 2023 strategy document "the Mars Strategy and Objectives Development document" once (p. 1). The responsible-exploration paper's reference 2 reverses the title: "NASA's Moon to Mars Objectives and Strategy Development".
   • Program names. PRISM is "Payload and Research Investigation from the Surface of the Moon" in the international paper (p. 3) and "Investigations" in ADD Rev C (pp. 47, 85). The same page of the paper has both "Artemis Deployed Instruments Program" and "Artemis Deployed Instrument Program". Session 31: a third form, "Payloads and Research Investigations on the Surface of the Moon (PRISM)", in NASA's September 2026 PRISM release.
   • Small slips: "recieve" (responsible exploration, p. 2); "National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine" (humans in space, pp. 1–2); "the National Academy of Sciences" as the decadal's author (responsible exploration, p. 1).

   Worth raising with the architecture team, or leave as recorded?

Session 19 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Wording" (the 2022 wording is current).] Contradiction, small: the 2022 and 2023 wording of the objectives. The 2023 Strategy and Objectives Development document restates the 63 objectives and nine tenets with small edits. PDF checked on both:

   • Goals: "high-priority" for "high priority" (HS, PPS); "to support safe, productive human space missions, and to reduce risks" (HBS); "an initial human Mars exploration campaign" (MI); "lunar and Martian surfaces" (TH).
   • Objectives: "the geologic processes affecting planetary bodies by determining interior structures, characterizing magmatic histories" (LPS-2); "health and performance" (HBS-2); "surface of the Moon" (OP-1); "training, and interaction … surface team, considering" (OP-2).
   • Tenets: "Partner with the international community" (RT-1); "Leverage low-Earth orbit" (RT-8's name).

   ADD Rev C's goals table (pp. 15–16) and tenet table (p. 83), and the December 2025 lunar decomposition (all 52 objectives, checked by search of the CSV), print the 2022 wording. The meaning is the same throughout. The wiki treats the 2022 wording as current, because the newest documents print it, and lists the 2023 variants on Objectives. Also: ADD Rev C once writes "TH-04-M" (p. 38) for the objective marked TH-4 LM in 2022 and 2023, and in the lunar sheet as TH-04 LM. Agree, or prefer the 2023 wording?

   Session 20 addition: the 2023 document has a third wording. Its Appendix C tables (PDF pp. 48–77, PDF checked) don't use its own Section 5 edits. LPS-2 and HBS-2 are in the 2022 wording, and two objectives are in words found in neither version: HS-3 "using the cislunar, near-Martian, and near-surface environments" (PDF pp. 70, 72; 2022 and Section 5: "near-Mars, and surface") and PPS-1 "investigations of deep space and deep time" (PDF p. 76; 2022 and Section 5: "space and time"). It also capitalizes "Solar System" in LPS-1, LPS-3, LPS-4 and HS-2. The December 2025 lunar decomposition prints the 2022 wording for both. The wiki's rule doesn't change; the variants are listed on Science objectives and the decadal surveys.

2. Slips and inconsistencies in the two objectives documents. Recorded on the source pages as printed, PDF checked; none is corrected.

   • 2022 document: LPS-4's number set in superscript with its suffix (p. 6); OP-3's suffix printed "3L" with only "M" in superscript (p. 11); no final period on HBS-3 and AS-4 (pp. 7–8); "Our first draft … were intentionally broad" (p. 3).
   • 2023 document, durations: "Development of the objectives spanned one year" (PDF p. 3) against "rigorously developed over nine months" (PDF p. 18). Its own dates run from November 2021 to the final set, which the 2022 document dates September 2022.
   • 2023 document, groupings: TH's "three groupings" overlap (TH-3 and TH-7 are in two, PDF p. 28). The LI rationale lists LI-4 to LI-6 as "mobility, precise landings, and manufacturing and construction", the reverse of the objectives' order (PDF pp. 26–27).
   • 2023 document, wording: "raison d'etat" (PDF p. 11); "development the International Space Station" (PDF p. 12); "of the all the other principles" (PDF p. 16); "lunar and Martians environments" (PDF p. 23); "the fulfillment this policy" (PDF p. 31).
   • 2023 document, figure caption: the text layer carries "Figure 2. …" (PDF p. 8), not visible on the rendered page; no other figure in PDF pp. 1–40 is numbered.

   See the 2022 and 2023 source pages. Worth raising, or leave as recorded?

   Session 20 addition (2023 document, PDF pp. 41–78, PDF checked):

   • Spelling and naming: "methodology principals" and "Overarching Objectives Principals" (PDF p. 46); "the International Space Agency" among the stakeholders briefed (PDF p. 46); "Active Solar and Physics Decadal Science Challenges" as a column heading (PDF pp. 70, 72); "decadalscale" (PDF p. 77).
   • Appendix C: "Table C.1" is named (PDF p. 47) but never captioned; "Q3.4 What processes the unique initial state of Mars?" has no verb (PDF p. 48); HS-3's two other documents are listed twice (PDF pp. 71, 73); HBS-1's row says "the 2010 Decadal report" for the survey dated 2011 elsewhere (PDF pp. 47, 74, 76).
   • Date: the back cover's publication number is "NP-2023-03-3115-HQ" (PDF p. 78). The wiki reads no month from it, and still calls the document "2023" from its upload path.
   • Duration, again: Appendix B runs from November 2021 to the September 2022 release (PDF pp. 43, 46). This doesn't settle "one year" against "nine months".

3. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "One home per topic".] Where the two objectives documents' content went. Following "one home per topic" (open questions 34 and 47):

   • Objectives material on Objectives: where the objectives came from; the vision–endeavor–goal–objective definitions; the goal categories; NASA's 2023 rationale for each goal, with the LI and TH groupings; a table of all 63 by suffix; the eleven objectives not in the lunar decomposition, quoted in 2022 wording; the suffix definition; the 2022-against-2023 wording table; the 15-term objectives glossary. On Lunar objectives: the comparison of all 52 with 2022, and a correction (session 16 had missed that ADD p. 37 names LPS-4).
   • The glossary is on the objectives page, not in glossary.md. SCHEMA lists glossary.md, and a later queue item builds it from ADD Appendix F. The 2023 document says its definitions "apply to the goals, objectives, and recurring tenets", so session 19 put them with the objectives. The glossary session should link to that table rather than copy it, and record whether Appendix F defines the same terms differently.
   • The eleven objectives are on the objectives index, not on a new Mars page. The Mars decomposition session should extend that table (or move it to a Mars objectives page and leave a pointer), not duplicate it.
   • Strategy material, one section per page: the pillars and Section 2.1 on Why Moon to Mars; the five principles and why-what-how on Objective decomposition; the 2023 plan for cycles and reviews on Architecture definition process; tenet wording and rationale on Recurring tenets; the 2022/2023 definition of "architecture" on Architecture framework. Each is labeled as 2022 or 2023, with what changed by Rev C as the wiki's comparison.
   • Left on the source page only: the 2023 document's systems-engineering risks and its history of earlier Moon and Mars programs (1989 to 2022). They are about NASA's strategy, not the architecture's content.

   Adopt, or change (for example, a separate glossary page now)?

   Session 20 addition (PDF pp. 41–78):

   • A new page for Appendix C. The appendix maps 13 science objectives to the decadal surveys over 31 PDF pages, a level below the objectives, and the objectives index was already long. So it went on a new page, Science objectives and the decadal surveys, with a pointer from the index's LPS section (whose heading is kept, because other pages link to it). The page lists the questions and goals each objective traces to, and quotes only research rows that name the Moon. It doesn't tie research rows to individual questions, because the table shows that only by shading. Nor does it expand codes the document doesn't define (SHP, SWMI, AIMI, FARSIDE).
   • Appendix B on Objectives, merged into the existing timeline. The tenets' origin ("expanded from four to nine") is on Recurring tenets, and the Houston workshop's "anchor tenant" line is on RT-9, labeled as the wiki's pairing.
   • Appendix A's last taglines are on Why Moon to Mars.

   Adopt, or keep Appendix C on the objectives index?

   Session 22 addition, the glossary: glossary.md links to the objectives table rather than copying it, as proposed. ADD Appendix F carries 14 of the 15 terms, credited to "Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives" (a title neither document has exactly), in the 2022 wording apart from capitals and commas, "i.e.," in Validate, and Continuous Presence's "24/7/365" for "365/24/7" (pp. 296–302). It replaces Architecture with the Systems Engineering Handbook definition (p. 295). Recorded on the Glossary and the objectives index.

Session 21 (2026-10-01)

1. Contradiction: how many crewed Mercury flights, seven or six? The 2024 executive overview's "Why Moon to Mars?" infographic counts "7 Crewed Mercury Flights" (2024 overview, PDF p. 4, read from the PDF). The 2025 "Why Moon and Mars?" white paper's crawl-walk-run graphic gives Project Mercury "Six Crewed Flights" (WP p. 2). Neither explains its count, and ADD Rev C gives none. Gemini (10) and the Space Shuttle (135) agree. SCHEMA prefers the newer source, so the wiki treats six as current, records both on Why Moon to Mars, and doesn't use knowledge from outside the sources to settle it. The overview's Apollo count, "9 Crewed Apollo Missions", fits the paper's "nine … (plus two Earth orbit missions)". Which figure is right?

2. When were the twelve Mars tasks identified, and do the MD numbers follow that order? The 2024 executive overview's "Priority Decisions" chart splits twelve hexagons by a dashed line labeled "ACR23 | ACR24" (PDF p. 15, read from the PDF). As the wiki reads the image, seven fall on the ACR23 side and five on the ACR24 side. The seven fit the 2023 overview's "seven key Mars architecture decisions" (PDF p. 9). Matched by title to the 2025 "Architecture Definition" paper's Table One, the seven are MD-01 to MD-07 and the five MD-08 to MD-12 (Key definition tasks). Three things rest on the wiki's reading, not on a printed statement: which side of a jagged dashed line each hexagon sits on, the title match (two titles changed, from "Risk Posture" to "Risk Methodology"), and so whether MD numbers follow the order of identification. The overviews print no MD number but MD-01. ADD Appendix C (queued then; read in session 22, see below) or the 2023 paper "Key Mars Architecture Decisions" (not held; question 30) could confirm it. Worth confirming with the architecture team?

   Session 22: Appendix C doesn't settle it. Its table dates only the four completions (ACR24 for MD-07; ACR25 for MD-02, MD-04, MD-05), and its note says numbers are assigned "As NASA has begun work on these priority key definition tasks" and that "The order does not imply prioritization" (p. 194). Nothing says when each task was identified. Still open.

   Session 25: two 2024 papers date two subjects to 2023. Crew complement "was identified by NASA as a priority decision in the 2023 Moon to Mars Architecture white paper, 'Key Mars Architecture Decisions'" (crew complement, p. 1). The surface power choice was identified "As part of the 2023 Architecture Concept Review cycle" as "a key decision" (Mars power, p. 1). That fits the wiki's reading, which puts MD-05, MD-06 and MD-07 on the ACR23 side. It doesn't say whether "crew complement" was one 2023 decision or two (surface and vicinity), or anything about the order of MD numbers. Supported, not settled.

   Session 48: the February 2024 briefing of "Key Mars Architecture Decisions" itself gives the seven, one slide each, with crew to surface and crew to vicinity as two decisions ("number of crew to surface is not necessarily the same as number of crew to Mars vicinity"), all seven before ACR24 (Mars decisions briefing, slides 6–13). That settles "one or two" and confirms which seven were on the ACR23 side. The slides' order (science, target state, cadence, loss of crew, crew to surface, crew to vicinity, power) is exactly MD-01 to MD-07 by the title match, which fits numbering in the paper's order; but the deck prints no MD numbers, so that remains the wiki's reading. It says "nearly 100" decisions where the opening deck says "nearly 90". Further supported; the numbering is still not printed anywhere before Rev C.

3. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "One home per topic".] Where the two executive overviews' content went. Following "one home per topic" (questions 34, 47 and 52):

   • Two source pages, one per overview, each with contents, figures read from the PDF, what changed by Rev C, and oddities. The 2024 page also holds four transcriptions that have no better home: the one-line goal descriptions, the seven key terms against Rev C, the coffee-maker figure and the elements spread. The 2023 page holds the 13 white papers of January 2024.
   • One section per subject, labeled "In the executive overviews (2023 and 2024)" or "In the 2024 executive overview", each with "What changed by Rev C": Architecture definition process (cadence, plans and accomplishments), Key definition tasks (decision roadmapping, the priority chart; the Mars power feature inside the MD-07 case study), Why Moon to Mars, Elements, Segments and Objective decomposition. Shorter notes went on Architecture framework (key terms), Sub-architectures (History), the objectives index (the one-line goals), Recurring tenets and the gaps index.
   • Element pages got a short section of the same name, only where something was specific to the element: Initial Surface Habitat and Lunar Surface Cargo Lander (their 2024 functions), Gateway, HDL, LTV and Pressurized Rover (2023 segment; 2024 names and the JAXA agreement). SCaN Networks got a short "In the 2024 executive overview".
   • One gap page got a new section. #0101 has "In the 2024 executive overview", with the 2024 form of the gap. SCHEMA's gap-page sections don't include one; session 17 put older material in "Related pages" only. A whole earlier version of the table seemed too long for a bullet. Keep the section, or move it to the source page?
   • No Moon Base relevance section changed. Both overviews predate the Moon Base. Where a 2024 function is now a Users Guide Phase 1 functional gap (FN-H-101 L, FN-H-201 L, FN-P-402 L, FN-T-202 L), the element page says so inside the new section, labeled as the wiki's join.
   • Not used: the text layer of the 2024 overview's PDF p. 8, which carries the full text of the white-paper thumbnails. Nothing on the wiki cites it to the overview.

   Adopt, or change?

4. Slips in the two executive overviews. Recorded on the source pages as printed, PDF checked; none is corrected.

   • 2023 overview: the contents page's numbers for segments, sub-architectures, elements and white papers don't match the printed pages, and it lists elements before white papers; "Create an framework"; "Gateway ESPIRIT Refueling Module" (ADD Rev C: "ESPRIT"); "Architectural Concept Review" once.
   • 2024 overview, pointers: the Mars power card says "(See associated feature on page 10)", which is the gaps feature; the Mars power feature points to "the associated 2024 white paper, 'Key Mars Architecture Decisions'", a paper the roadmapping feature calls 2023.
   • 2024 overview, wording: "to explore of Mars", "differences is gravity", "approaches can that best fill", "make those decision", a missing verb in the ACR paragraph; "Documentated" and "AQUISITION STRATEGY" in the coffee figure; "Office of International and Interagency Relationships" (the 2024 partnerships paper has "Relations"); MD-01 "Science Objective Priorities" (Table One has "Objectives").
   • 2024 overview, back cover: the placeholder "NP-2024-12-XXXX-HQ".

   See the 2023 and 2024 source pages. Worth raising, or leave as recorded?

   Session 22: "ESPIRIT" is not only the 2023 overview's. ADD Rev C's own acronym list prints "ESPIRIT" too (p. 291), while its Gateway pages have "ESPRIT" (p. 53). Recorded under question 21.

Session 22 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Page sections" (Glossary) and "One home per topic".] Page type and format for glossary.md. SCHEMA lists glossary.md ("Acronyms and terms") but gives no type for it and no sections. Session 22 used type: concept and these sections: the 112 acronyms of ADD F.1 in a table with NASA's "Usage/Context" and a wiki-pages column; the 107 terms of F.2 with page numbers, in the printed order; F.3's quantity descriptors; comparisons with every other place the sources define the same words; and what Appendix F leaves out. Choices made:

   • Only ADD Appendix F is transcribed. Terms that other sources define (the white papers' key-terms tables, the objectives glossary) are compared or linked, not added as entries.
   • Acronyms outside F.1 are listed only where the ADD itself expands them (ESDMD, AxEMU, CEV, ESAS). Acronyms the ADD uses without expanding (for example MOXIE, xEMU, ISS, SysML) have no entry, because nothing in the ADD would cite their expansion.
   • Long definitions shortened with "…" in three places (Concept of Operations, Limited Capability Mission, PNT), with the omitted content summarized.

   Adopt (and add a glossary type to SCHEMA?), or change, for example by adding cited acronyms from other sources as the wiki meets them?

2. Does F.3's "Moderate Amount" size the Lunar Surface Cargo Lander? The lander delivers "moderate amounts of cargo to the lunar surface" (ADD p. 59), with no figure. Appendix F.3 defines "Moderate Amount" for "Transport of cargo to the lunar surface" as "1000s of kg", but as one of the "terms used in the objective decomposition" (p. 304). The Lunar Utility Rover's description gives its own figure, "a moderate amount of cargo (thousands of kg)" (p. 61); the lander's doesn't. Two of the four functions the decomposition allocates to the lander say "a moderate amount of cargo (1000s of kg)" (FN-T-202 L, FN-T-204 L; Lunar Surface Cargo Lander). The wiki still gives the element no capacity, consistent with open question 45, and only points to F.3. Is "thousands of kg" the intended class?

3. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "One home per topic".] Where Appendix C's content went. Following "one home per topic" (questions 34, 47, 52, 55):

   • The lists on Key definition tasks: what each legacy decision and completed task adds to Section 3.1.3, and all 71 rows of the open-task table (four of them done). The 59 without a number are in one table by category, split by whether a gap names them (the wiki's search of the tech-gap sheet). The earlier sections were edited where Appendix C answered a pointer (the tasks without an ID, MD-02's target state, LD-05-L's surges).
   • The process (C.1) on Architecture definition process, next to the white paper's account it largely repeats.
   • The terms (C.1 table) on the Glossary.
   • MD-02's three remaining options also on Humans to Mars.
   • Not done: a gap-by-task cross-reference for the 38 unnumbered tasks (the gap pages already list their tasks), and a check of the "alphabetically" claim within each category.

   Adopt, or change?

Session 23 (2026-10-01)

1. Gap pairings the Mars decomposition doesn't make. The tech-gap sheet's traceability field (and ADD Appendix D, which prints the same pairs) pairs Mars use cases with functions. The wiki checked every Mars pair against the Mars spreadsheet's "Functions to Use Cases" sheet. All but three are in it:

   • #0202 pairs UC-A-403 M with FN-A-402 M. The sheet puts FN-A-402 M (decisions "in deep space and/or Mars vicinity") under UC-A-404 M only; UC-A-403 M (surface autonomy) has FN-G-401 M, FN-G-407 M and FN-A-401 M. FN-A-401 M is the surface twin of FN-A-402 M.
   • #0401 to #0404, the four crew countermeasure gaps, pair UC-X-101 M with FN-X-101 M and UC-X-102 M with FN-X-102 M. The sheet puts FN-X-101 M under UC-H-102 M, UC-H-104 M, UC-X-105 M and UC-X-107 M, and FN-X-102 M under UC-H-103 M, UC-H-105 M, UC-X-106 M and UC-X-108 M, but neither under UC-X-101 M or UC-X-102 M (medical care and emergency response). #0305 and #0405 pair the same functions with UC-X-105 M and UC-X-106 M, which the sheet does make.
   • #0308 lists UC-X-105 M, UC-X-106 M and UC-X-109 M with no function, but the sheet gives each two functions. This is the Mars counterpart of #0307's lunar case (question 43).

   The pages show both and correct nothing: the gap pages' Traceability sections, and a † or ‡ on Mars use cases and Mars functions. Both sources are from December 2025. Which is right: the gap tables or the decomposition?

2. What are "special regions" on Mars? Six Mars use cases and six Mars functions separate "special regions" from "non-special regions" on the Martian surface (for example UC-U-104 M, "Identification of surface samples in special regions on the Martian surface"). Neither ADD Rev C (searched) nor the Mars spreadsheet defines the term, and Appendix F has no entry. The ACR25 planetary protection paper speaks of "regions with special planetary restrictions" (p. 4; Planetary protection), but doesn't use "special regions". The term may come from planetary protection policy, which no source here defines. The wiki uses it as printed. Is there a NASA source the wiki should hold for it?

3. AS-2 LM has no use case in either decomposition. AS-2 LM, "Coordinate on-going and future science measurements from orbital and surface platforms to optimize human-led science campaigns on the Moon and Mars", is the one LM objective the lunar sheet leaves out (session 16). The Mars sheet includes it but with "BLANK" for its use cases. So it is the only one of the 63 objectives that no use case serves in either workbook. Five other LM objectives (SE-01, SE-02, SE-05, AS-04, AS-05) have lunar use cases but none in the Mars sheet; OP-10 LM has Mars use cases but none in the lunar sheet (Mars objectives). Neither the sheets nor the ADD says why. Deliberate, or forward work?

   Session 26, the 2024 tables: the gaps go back to the C&N layer.

   • AS-02 LM is in both 2024 tables, each time with one C&N and no use case: CN-U-801 L (lunar, "BLANK") and CN-U-801 M (Mars, no row).
   • OP-10 LM, lunar: one C&N, CN-A-301 L, with "BLANK". OP-10 LM, Mars: three C&Ns whose use cases are the seven the 2025 sheet gives it.
   • Mars: twelve science objectives reach no use case in 2024. Six gained use cases by 2025: HS-01, HS-04, PPS-02, AS-01, AS-06 and SE-06. The six that didn't are SE-01, SE-02, SE-05, AS-02, AS-04 and AS-05 (Mars characteristics and needs).

   This shows when the gaps arose, not why.

4. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Page sections" (Appendix B list pages; objective and C&N pages).] Page format for the Mars decomposition. Compare questions 41 and 44. Session 23 made three pages:

   • Mars use cases and Mars functions, in the lunar list pages' format, but with a decomposition column on each (functions under a use case; use cases a function serves). The lunar list pages don't have these (question 44). The Mars sheet has one decomposition and no allocation, so the columns are simple.
   • Mars objectives, with codes, use cases and a short subject label that the wiki made from the wording, but not the wording itself, which is already on two pages (question 52).
   • Mars "All FN" entries expanded on the gaps index, next to the lunar ones.

   Adopt, or change? Should the lunar list pages get the same decomposition columns?

Session 24 (2026-10-01)

1. Contradictions: ADD Appendix B.3 and B.5 against each other and against the lunar spreadsheet. All three are from December 2025, so SCHEMA's newer-wins rule doesn't decide them. The pages show both sides and correct nothing (Lunar function allocation).

   • Inside the ADD: mapped and unallocated at once. B.3 maps FN-A-103 L (reconnaissance) to the Pressurized Rover (p. 162) and FN-A-105 L (robots with logistics carriers) to the Lunar Utility Rover (p. 160). B.5 lists both as unallocated, under every use case they serve: UC-U-102 L, UC-U-105 L, UC-U-106 L (pp. 177–178) and UC-A-103 L (p. 168). The sheet allocates both and doesn't mark them Unallocated. Both are Moon Base Phase 1 functional gaps. FN-P-101 L and FN-P-301 L are also mapped and listed as unallocated, but there the ADD and the sheet agree.
   • FN-A-103 L and the LTV. The sheet puts reconnaissance on the LTV as well as the Pressurized Rover; B.3.10 doesn't (p. 159).
   • FN-M-402 L, "Unload a moderate amount of cargo (1000s of kg) on the lunar surface", is Unallocated in the sheet under 17 use cases. The ADD's B.3, B.4 and B.5 never name it.
   • Three more functions that no ADD table for Foundational Exploration names: FN-G-106 L and FN-G-107 L (ground services and launch "to support large nuclear assets"; the sheet gives both to Exploration Ground Systems), and FN-C-205 L (lunar time scale; the sheet gives it to its generic "Communication/PNT Asset", which has no ADD table). FN-C-205 L is unallocated in the ADD's HLR (B.5.1, p. 167).
   • Smaller differences are listed under question 43: six FE pairs only in the sheet, three HLR pairs only in the ADD.

   Which is current, the ADD's tables or the sheet? Is B.5 behind B.3, or do the two mean different things by "unallocated"? The Lunar Utility Rover is new in Rev C, which might bear on FN-A-105 L. It can't explain FN-A-103 L, though: the Pressurized Rover dates from Rev A. The wiki doesn't guess.

   Session 26, against the 2024 lunar table (Lunar function allocation):

   • FN-A-103 L and FN-A-105 L were Unallocated in 2024 for FE. B.5 agrees with 2024 on them, and B.3 with the 2025 sheet.
   • FN-M-402 L was on CLPS Provider Landers in 2024 (HLR and FE), Unallocated in the 2025 sheet, and in no ADD table.
   • FN-C-205 L was Unallocated for both HLR and FE in 2024; the ADD keeps it unallocated for HLR only.
   • Not a simple lag. Three more functions left Unallocated between 2024 and 2025 (FN-M-503 L, FN-A-302 L, FN-D-201 L), and on them B.3 and B.5 both agree with 2025.

   So the 2024 table fits some of the ADD's differences and not others. It still doesn't say which of the ADD's tables is current.

2. Which half of the Users Guide's definition does each Phase 1 functional gap fall under? The guide defines functional gaps as "architecture functions that are either currently unallocated to any existing elements, or functions that need additional performance to be fully satisfied". It adds: "A full list of unallocated functions can be found in an appendix of the Architecture Definition Document" (p. 9; p. 3 has "appendixes for needed functions not currently allocated to exploration elements").

   • B.5 is that list, by its title (the wiki's match since session 15).
   • B.5 holds 11 of the guide's 31. The other 20 are mapped to elements in B.3 and in the spreadsheet, and aren't in B.5 (Phase 1 functional gaps).
   • That would fit the definition, 11 "unallocated" and 20 that "need additional performance", but the guide doesn't say which half each function is in. No ADD appendix lists functions that need more performance or says how much more.
   • Four of the 11 are also mapped in B.3. FN-P-101 L and FN-P-301 L are on the fission system, as in the sheet. FN-A-103 L and FN-A-105 L are allocated in the sheet too (question 64). So only seven are purely unallocated, and for the four even the "unallocated" half is unclear.
   • B.5 lists 78 functions in all: 77 in Foundational Exploration, plus FN-C-205 L in Human Lunar Return. The guide took 11 of them for Phase 1 and doesn't say why the others wait.

   The wiki reports the split by source and doesn't label any of the 20 as "additional performance". Is there a NASA statement of what each of the 20 lacks?

   Session 43 addition: a February 2025 workshop slide, older than Rev C and the guide, sorts four of the 31 into two kinds: "Example Capability Gap from ADD" for FN-P-101 L and FN-P-202 L, and "Example Performance Gap" for FN-H-102 L and FN-X-103 L, under "Gaps can be identified two ways: Unfilled Use Cases/Functions; Performance gap with only partially addressed capability" (FE gaps deck, slide 2). But FN-H-102 L and FN-X-103 L are in B.5, and they were "Unallocated" in the 2024 table too (the wiki's reading of the counts: 75 of 2025's 76 were Unallocated in 2024, and the exception is FN-M-402 L). So in NASA's own example a function can be on the unallocated list and still be called a performance gap: the split "B.5 = unallocated, the other 20 = additional performance" doesn't hold for these two. Recorded on Phase 1 functional gaps; the slide doesn't mention the Moon Base and changes no Moon Base relevance.

Session 25 (2026-10-01)

1. Names, figures and slips in the four ACR24 Mars papers. Recorded as printed on the source pages, PDF checked; none is corrected.

   • A third title for the power paper. The crew-complement paper points to "the 2024 Mars Initial Surface Power Decision white paper published concurrently to this paper" (p. 3). The paper is titled "Mars Surface Power Technology Decision"; the 2024 overview's feature calls it "Mars Surface Power Decision".
   • The EDL paper against its own figure. Its text says flown Mars systems landed "between 0.3 and 1 metric tons" and human-class EDL needs "over 20 metric tons" (p. 4); its Figure 5 gives Mars 2020 1.050 t landed and the projected human-scale lander 26–36 t (p. 5). Gap #1103's 2025 target is "between 25 and 75+ metric tons" (ADD p. 254). The three are set side by side, as the wiki's comparison, on Transportation Systems.
   • Uncited references. The EDL paper lists ten references but cites only [1] to [7] in its text.
   • Small slips: "down-flow impacts" and "Geothermal Engergy" (power paper, pp. 1, 3); "which hinder" (ascent paper, p. 3); "Even when select landing ellipses" (EDL paper, p. 3); two semicolons for commas (crew paper, p. 2). The ascent paper heads its 2009 study "Mars Reference Mission Architecture" and cites it as "Human Exploration of Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0" (pp. 2, 5).
   • Not compared. Mars solar flux is "at most 45 percent of typical Earth values" in the power paper (p. 2) and "<40% of the Moon" in gap #0902. Different baselines; the wiki gives both on #0902 and doesn't reconcile them.

   Worth raising with the architecture team, or leave as recorded?

2. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "One home per topic".] Where the four ACR24 Mars papers' content went. Following "one home per topic" (questions 47, 52, 55, 59):

   • Four source pages, each with contents, what the PDF shows that the text loses (Figure 5's EDL table, transcribed in full; the ascent paper's Figure 2 key; the crew paper's two figures, labels only, since the pie chart's values are "notional"), takeaways, references and oddities.
   • One home each. Crew complement under MD-05 and power under the MD-07 case study on Key definition tasks, because the papers prepare and record those two tasks. The 2025 "Architecture Definition" paper cites the power paper for MD-07; the crew paper → MD-05/MD-06 pairing is the wiki's. EDL on Transportation Systems and ascent propellant on ISRU Systems, the sub-architectures of their subjects, as session 17 did for the lunar papers. Each has a "What changed by Rev C" list.
   • A hub on Humans to Mars: one row per paper and four cross-paper observations, since the four papers take up Mars subjects, most of them among the segment's areas of future work. That is new: session 17 and 18 papers had no hub.
   • Labeled bullets in Related pages on #0606, #1102, #1103, #1105 and DN-004 M to DN-006 M (the pairings are the wiki's), and a fuller bullet on #0902, whose MD-07 link is the sources' own. A short "In the ACR24 white papers (2024)" section on the Lunar Nuclear Fission System, with the power paper's "Moon as a Testbed" paragraph, labeled as the wiki's pairing. No Moon Base relevance section changed: the papers predate the Moon Base.
   • 2024 figures kept as 2024. The 10 kW minimum (two crew, 30 days) and the 2024 ISRU study (one mission, two crew descending) are set against MD-05's floor of four and MD-02's removal of single-mission scenarios, not offered as current figures.

   Adopt, or change? In particular, is a hub section on a segment page wanted for groups of white papers?

Session 26 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Page sections" (objective and C&N pages) and "One home per topic".] Where the 2024 mapping tables' content went, and a page format for C&Ns. Following "one home per topic" (questions 47, 52, 55, 59, 67):

   • Two source pages, lunar and Mars. Each holds the sheets, conventions and key, and a "What changed by December 2025" section that lists every use case and function added, dropped or retitled. That makes them long, but the lists are the comparison.
   • Two new list pages in objectives/, Lunar characteristics and needs and Mars characteristics and needs, mirroring the lunar and Mars objectives pages. Each has "at a glance" counts by letter, the C&Ns with no use case, and one table per letter (ID, NASA's wording, objectives, use cases), then pairings to note. SCHEMA has no format for C&N pages (compare questions 41, 44 and 63), and the page type is "objective" because C&Ns are part of the objectives' decomposition.
   • The 2024 allocation is a section on Lunar function allocation, as session 25's handoff asked: a comparison, not a re-listing.
   • Pointers: a section on Objective decomposition, short "In the 2024 … table" notes on the four use-case and function list pages, notes on the lunar and Mars objectives pages, the 2025 source pages, and Use cases and functions (the Mars groups G 400, G 500 and C 300 are named in the 2024 Mars key).
   • Not done: no element page or Moon Base page changed, since the tables predate both Rev C's new elements and the Moon Base. The 2024 function–use case pairs weren't compared with 2025 pair by pair, and the full decomposition sheets were only counted.

   Adopt, or change? Should the C&Ns get columns on the objectives pages instead?

2. Dates and oddities in the 2024 mapping tables. Recorded as printed on the source pages; none is resolved.

   • Which date? Both covers say "PUBLISHED: October 2024". The file names say 20241202 (lunar) and 20241031 (Mars), and both upload paths are /2024/12/. NASA lists both under "2024 Architecture Concept Review", with Revision B (December 2024).
   • A change dated later than the file. The lunar table already pairs UC-T-103 L with FN-T-106 L, FN-T-217 L and FN-C-103 L, not FN-T-103 L. The ADD's revision history dates the removal of FN-T-103 L from UC-T-103 L to Revision B.1, 04/04/2025 (pp. 3–4). Perhaps Revision B's text had the pairing and the table didn't, or the file at the URL was replaced after April 2025. Both are guesses, and the wiki can't tell which, if either, is right.
   • "Appendix A". Both covers call "Appendix A in the ADD" the authoritative source; in Rev C the tables are Appendix B. Revision B isn't among the sources.
   • The Mars workbook carries lunar sheets. Its objective list is the lunar table's 53 objectives, and an unnamed sheet holds a lunar decomposition with C&Ns. That sheet mixes 2024 wording ("moderate duration") with spellings otherwise found only in the December 2025 lunar workbook ("maintaing", "bio-regenerative"), and has no 2025-only IDs.
   • Small slips: FN-D-203 L listed twice in the FE Unallocated block; no asset EM-011; "to recovery of" (CN-I-101 L), "variety or products" (CN-I-202 L), "Martian obit" (CN-U-711 M).

   Worth asking NASA which file is the 2024 baseline, or leave as recorded?

Session 27 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "One home per topic", "Citing" (undated web pages) and "Naming and scope".] Where the 15 architecture web pages' content went, and how much they add. Following "one home per topic" (questions 47, 52, 55, 59, 67, 68):

   • Fifteen source pages, named after the text files as session 1 did (question 2), so two names lack the moontomarsarchitecture- prefix (architecture-multimedia-resources, moon-to-mars-architecture-mars-architecture-trade-space). None of the pages is dated; each source page gives the fetch time and, where useful, image upload paths as indirect evidence.
   • Most of the text is the 2024 executive overview's, nearly word for word (main page, Architecture Concept Review, Architecting from the Right, Components, Strategy and Objectives). The source pages record the small wording differences and don't re-quote the rest.
   • New content went to topic pages: the Mars trade space and the studies library on Humans to Mars; the web definition of "trade space" on the Glossary; decision roadmapping, the workshop record and the product shelf on Architecture definition process; NextSTEP on RT-2; OIIR's contacts on RT-1.
   • Not done: no linked document, figure, gallery or article was fetched (tier 3; see question 30). No segment, sub-architecture or element page changed, because the Components page says it is being updated and adds nothing to Rev C. The OIIR staff names are on the International Engagement source page only.
   • Pointers on other source pages were replaced where this session had the file open: "(queued)" on both 2024 tables, and "hasn't fetched" on the 2025 Update's trade-space link. About ten older source pages still point to these web pages as "(queued)"; the lint item should replace them (list in the session 27 log entry). Session 28: replaced.

   Adopt, or change?

Session 28 (2026-10-01)

1. [Settled, 2026-10-01: all 11,154 links and 2,288 anchors in the wiki resolve under MkDocs' default rule, checked with a script outside the wiki runs; the published site uses that rule (queue item 99, as approved by the project lead; recorded in session 60, which did not rerun the check). The link-checker and anchor questions below are answered by it.] Lint, part 1: what was checked, what was fixed, what is left. The lint item was split. Part 1 covered stale pointers, links, orphans and spot checks; part 2 is queued.
   • Checked, clean:
     • Every page file is listed in index.md (211 content pages plus the six top-level files).
     • No link has the wrong relative prefix: ../ in a top-level file, or a folder path without ../ inside a folder.
     • No link points to a gap or data-gap ID that doesn't exist, including the retired #0602.
     • No link points to overview.md or moon-base/needs.md, which don't exist yet.
     • Links to source pages all name existing files. Per family of names, lines with any source link equal lines with a valid one.
     • Links into the other folders pass a check on their first letters. That catches a page linked in the wrong folder, but not every typo.
   • Not checked:
     • Anchors (#…) are not checked. There are hundreds of them.
     • Not every link name was checked letter by letter. That needs a script, and the runner has no shell. Would the project lead run a link checker once, or allow one?
   • Fixed:
     • 18 "(queued)" pointers on eight source pages now link the session 27 source pages.
     • 13 plain-path citations of the White Papers page are now links.
     • "not fetched" on the Update's Appendix R sentence now names the Industry Engagement page, which is held.
     • Other stale wording: Elements "(p. 69; queued)"; "left to a later session" on Lunar use cases, now pointing to question 44; question 54's "(queued)".
     • Two plain-path web addresses now link their source pages.
   • Orphans: three web-page source pages had no link from any topic page: Strategy and Objectives, Components, and Feature Stories. Each is now under "Related pages" on Objectives, Recurring tenets, Segments, Architecture framework or Architecture definition process. Multimedia Resources is left linked only from the index and two other web-page source pages, because it holds nothing architectural.
   • Spot checks that agree:
     • Gap counts per sub-architecture: index against the sub-architectures index.
     • Gap counts per segment: 32 FE, 46 SLE, 44 H2M (11 Mars-only), 17 of 19 Moon Base gaps in FE.
     • Unallocated functions: 75 of 76, plus 2, makes 77.
     • The 19 MB flags.
     • Every "Artemis III" on a topic page is either attributed to Rev C or notes the 2026 change.
   • Terms without a page. These are candidates only; no page was written, because each would need a reading of sources. Does the project lead want any of them?
     • Reference missions. The ADD defines the term (Appendix F, p. 300), and the two HLR and seven FE reference missions are spread over the segment pages. No page brings them together.
     • The Artemis missions (I to V) and "Artemis Mission Campaign". Both are in the glossary with no wiki page. The sequence and its 2026 changes are spread over Human Lunar Return, HLS, Orion, SLS and the Moon Base pages.
     • "Technology gap" and "Mars vicinity" have no Appendix F entry (session 22). The gaps index defines the first.
     • 52 glossary rows have no wiki page. Most need none: space agencies and general terms.
   • Left for part 2:
     • Go through questions 1–70 to see which are settled by later sessions and which still apply.
     • Grep for stale claims that don't use the word "queued" ("read so far", "so far").
     • Anchors, if a way to check them is agreed. Session 29: part 2 done; see question 72. Anchors are still not checked, and the link-checker question above is still open.

Session 29 (2026-10-01)

1. Lint, part 2: where questions 1–71 stand. Every question was read against the later sessions' additions. A question counts as settled only where a source answered it. The markers on 8, 22, 27 and 39 are new; the bodies are unchanged. Grouped by what each needs from the project lead:

   • Settled from the sources, nothing to do:
     • 1, 7, 13, 15 (marked earlier)
     • 39: the queue re-cut is done
     • 8 and 27, mostly. Small parts remain: the place within a function group; LD and MD never expanded
     • 22: handled by the newer-source rule. What becomes of Gateway is still unstated
     • parts of 12 (the ✓ and * markers), 19 (the suffixes), 30 (the trade-space page is held), 70 (the pointers)
   • Format and method choices to adopt into SCHEMA, or change. The wiki has a working practice for each:
     • page sections: 18 (data gaps), 23 (segments, sub-architectures), 24 (elements), 26 (tenets), 41 (Appendix B lists), 44 (objectives), 57 (glossary), 63 (Mars decomposition), 68 (C&Ns)
     • where each source's content goes, "one home per topic": 34, 47, 52, 55, 59, 67, 70
     • links and columns the wiki makes itself: 11 (seven kinds of join), 16 (derived columns), 19 (link objective codes on data-gap pages?)
     • citing: 12 (the one-sheet workbook), 29 (PDF page numbers where printed numbers differ, now five documents)
     • which wording to follow: 17 (Users Guide hyphens: the lint can't make them consistent until a form is chosen), 38 (prefer the ADD or the sheet in general?), 50 (2022 wording as current)
     • naming and scope: 2 (web source-page names), 36 (the ADD's TechPort note)
   • Contradictions between sources, still open. Each page shows both sides; the newer-source rule doesn't decide them:
     • same-date documents: 28 (Mars crew, "no fewer than six" or "up to six"), 31 (Mars light-time, 24 or 22 minutes), 33 (LTV and Pressurized Rover in Human Lunar Return?), 37 (#1107's pairing), 38 (DN-016 L, DN-007 L), 60 (Mars gap pairings the decomposition doesn't make), 64 (B.3 against B.5 against the sheet)
     • the ADD against the Users Guide: 40 (FN-P-102 L's title)
     • web pages only: 3 (PSR minimum; the ADD gives no measured value, session 29) and 4 (IPEx; the December 2025 ADD and sheet agree)
     • older against newer: 53 (seven or six Mercury flights; the wiki follows the newer six)
   • Facts only NASA or the project lead can supply: 6 (phase numbers per phase or cumulative?), 9 (which Artemis mission is the first crewed Moon Base mission), 12 (why #0902 keeps solar and fuel-cell child gaps), 14 (one child gap or four), 20 (DN-015 L's exponents; opening the xlsx would settle it), 21 (the "three new results"), 25 (the standard SLS configuration), 32 (the "integrated surface power element"), 33 (Rev A's segment mapping), 42 (why the 2025 workbooks leave out the C&N sheets), 46 (the adopted lunar frame), 48 ("architecture gaps"; B.5 didn't settle it), 54 (when the MD tasks were identified), 58 ("moderate amount" for the cargo lander), 61 ("special regions"), 62 (AS-2 LM), 65 (which half of the functional-gap definition)
   • Records of slips, "worth raising with the architecture team?": 5, 21, 35, 43, 45, 49, 51, 56, 66, 69. None needs a decision for the wiki to stand.
   • Fetch requests: 10 and 30. sources/manifest.csv has no entry for nasa.gov/ignition, the SAM.gov solicitation or the Civil Space Shortfall List (session 29 search). Revision B and "Key Mars Architecture Decisions" would settle the most (question 30).
   • Lint: 71. Anchors are unchecked. A link checker run once by the project lead would cover them.

   Fixed in session 29:

   • Claims that had become false or stale:
     • "Read so far" in index.md. All 304 ADD pages are read.
     • "which the wiki hasn't read yet" on the "Architecture Definition" paper's source page. Appendix C was read in session 22.
     • "which no other source read so far does" on the lunar decomposition's source page. The 2022 objectives document gives the same wording.
     • "the pages read so far" on Use cases and functions.
     • "The ADD pages read so far" on Architecture definition process. It now says what a search of the whole ADD finds.
     • "so far" on the ADD source page, for earlier revisions, now pointing to the ADD documents page.
     • The Update source page's "not in the ADD pages read so far", now dated to session 9 (pp. 1–104).
   • "Read so far" about Gateway: on Human Lunar Return, Segments, Foundational Exploration, RT-1 and Gateway. Now "none of the wiki's sources". This is checked by a search of the 2026 documents and the Moon Base pages.
   • "HM" to "H2M" on the gaps index (question 23).

   Left as is, on purpose:

   • SCHEMA's "Not established by the sources so far", and the element pages' parallel "None recorded in the sources read so far". These are boilerplate; changing them would claim a re-check of every source.
   • Headings with "so far". "Objective codes used in the wiki so far" and "Revisions produced so far" may be link targets, and anchors are unchecked.

   • Other "no source read so far says …" claims still need a check against each source:

     • xEMU, on #0803 and xEVA
     • the LTV prototypes
     • the SLS configuration
     • Artemis III's deployed instrument, on RT-1
     • the Moon Base sources on EGS, xEVA and SLS
     • the objectives index's "no revision of the 2022 set"
     • the Users Guide as "the only source so far" that ties gap IDs to the Moon Base
     • the Update as "the fullest account … so far" of MD-05

     They were true when written, and nothing read since is known to contradict them, but this session didn't check them.

   • Users Guide hyphens (question 17): a form needs choosing first.

Session 30 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, "Moon Base lens": "named in the Moon Base Users Guide (near-term)", never "for Phase 1". Applied in session 51 to the pages listed below and to the gap and data-gap pages.] Is "MB, named for Moon Base Phase 1" the right label for the guide's 19 tech gaps and 19 data gaps? The Users Guide gives the gaps a wider time scope than the functional gaps (below). Pages that use the Phase 1 label, by a session 30 search for "for Moon Base Phase 1" and "Phase 1 only":

   • index.md: the tech-gap legend ("MB" means … "for Moon Base Phase 1") and the data-gap line
   • the gaps index: the "MB" legend, the "Named for Moon Base Phase 1" bin column and the sentence under it
   • the data gaps index: "names all 19 lunar data gaps for Moon Base Phase 1 challenges"
   • the Moon Base hub and Phases: "The guide maps these resources to Phase 1 only", listing tech and data gaps with the functional gaps
   • the Users Guide source page: "covers Phase 1 only for functional gaps and for the tech and data gaps"
   • the data gaps spreadsheet source page and Foundational Exploration
   • the sub-architectures index and all twelve sub-architecture pages ("named for Moon Base Phase 1" in the summary, and on most an "MB =" legend under the gap table)
   • gap pages' opening paragraphs, for example #0101, #0103, #0301, #0505, #0701, #0804, #0807, #0901; other gap and data-gap pages' "Moon Base relevance" sections may say "Phase 1" in other words (not searched)

   The guide's wording:

   • Only the functional gaps carry a "PHASE 01" heading (pp. 8–10).
   • The gaps are "key technology and knowledge challenges associated with near-term Moon Base development efforts. Missions during phase one of Moon Base development offer opportunities to collect data and mature technologies to enable essential phase two and phase three capabilities" (p. 11).
   • "NASA and its partners are working to fill the associated technology and data gaps, starting with initial missions in phase one" (pp. 12–13).

   So "work starts in Phase 1, for Phases 2 and 3" fits the guide better than "Phase 1 needs". The new Moon Base needs page uses the guide's wording and points here. The other pages are unchanged. A wording pass would touch the index, both gap indexes and up to 38 gap and data-gap pages. Does the project lead want one, and which label? One option is "named in the Users Guide's Moon Base challenges".

Session 31 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Naming and scope" (cite "as reported", with the speaker named; ranks below the documents).] How should a NASA article reporting a talk rank? The Ion article (August 2026) reports a public talk by the Moon Base Program's principal systems engineer. Two of its points are not in the Users Guide: the Moon Base "may not be a single cluster of connected structures" and could be "distributed across the lunar surface", and "Deal with the interfaces." SCHEMA ranks workshop slides below ADD Rev C, but says nothing about news reports of talks. Session 31 recorded each point as "Bhakta, as reported", on the source page and on Environment and Needs, and didn't treat the distributed base as architecture. Is that the right rank, or should these reports stay on their source pages only?

2. The new Moon Base pages: what they leave open.

   • PRISM suites and Moon Base phases. The PRISM release (30 September 2026) says LEMS-SP, GIMLI and DISCO fly via CLPS "as part of the agency's Moon Base Program", but gives no phase, date or lander. Nor does it say whether they ride on the four science landings selected on 30 June 2026 (encyclopedia, "History"). The wiki lists them under "no phase stated" and doesn't equate them. GIMLI's site, the Marius Hills Pit, is not at the South Pole.
   • The visualization page's interactive didn't render in the fetch, and its desktop application (MSC-27522-1) wasn't fetched. Only the page's text is held (source page).
   • Question 10, in part: three of the landing page's news items are now fetched (the science investigations, the navigation system, the Ion talk). The Ignition page is now in the queue, with eight more Moon Base pages. Still not fetched, as far as this session saw: Artemis Accords open science, the astronaut-deployed instrument, the SAM.gov solicitation and the 2026 Civil Space Shortfall List.

   Session 32 addition: the June 2026 release names the payloads on the four late-2028 landings: SCALPSS, a laser retroreflector array and LETS on each, and NASA is "reviewing options for these landers to deliver potential additional payloads" (June 2026 release). The PRISM suites are not among them, so whether they ride on these landers is still not said. The Ignition page and its eight companion pages are now read; the SAM.gov notices it summarizes were not fetched.

Session 32 (2026-10-01)

1. The Moon Base phases have two sets of names. The Ignition release (24 March 2026) calls them "Build, Test, Learn", "Establish Early Infrastructure" and "Enable Long‑Duration Human Presence". The phases page and the encyclopedia entry (both as fetched 1 October 2026) call them "Gain Reliable Access, Experiment, and Learn", "Build and Expand" and "Live and Work on the Moon". The Users Guide's graphic prints no names (p. 4). The wiki uses the web pages' names as the newer, and lists both on Phases. The Ignition deck on building the Moon Base (queued) may show which NASA uses now. Session 33 addition: four sets now. Two more Ignition-day documents differ again. The Ignition fact sheet has "Build, Test, and Learn", "Establish Early Infrastructure", "Enable Continuous Human Presence". The Building the Moon Base fact sheet has "Experiment, Learn" (Now–2029), "Early Habitation" (2029–2032), "Sustained Human Presence" (2032 and beyond). So NASA used three sets on 24 March itself. The wiki keeps the web pages' names and lists all four. Session 35 addition: five sets now. The Moon Base Program's own Ignition deck (26 March 2026) has a fifth: "Secure reliable access to the surface and experiment", "Establish the initial Moon Base operating capability", "Achieve semi-permanent crew presence" (slide 5). So the deck doesn't show which names NASA uses now. The wiki keeps the web pages' names and lists all five (Phases).

2. "A permanent lunar outpost by 2030" against Phase Three from 2032. The Ignition page summarizes the Moon Base Capabilities RFI as "NASA is taking bold steps toward establishing a permanent lunar outpost by 2030", and the Lunar Science and Technology Payloads RFI as aiming at "establishing a permanent lunar presence by 2030". The phases page puts Phase Three, "a permanent lunar outpost where astronauts can live and work for extended periods", at "2032–Beyond". The summaries may use "permanent" loosely, but no source says so. The SAM.gov notices themselves were not fetched. The wiki records both (Phases). Session 33 addition: the Ignition fact sheets don't say "by 2030". The Building the Moon Base fact sheet keeps Phase 3 at "2032 and beyond". The nuclear power fact sheet has Lunar Reactor-1 land "in 2030", to "keep the Moon Base operating through periods of darkness" (source page). That is a reactor date, not an outpost date; the wiki doesn't read the RFIs' 2030 as LR-1's. Session 35 addition: Ignition deck 2 names Phase 3 "Achieve semi-permanent crew presence", starting 2032 (slide 5), and its Phase 3 goals don't include the guide's "Continuous Crew Presence" (slide 28). Its Phase 3 Habitats slide still aims to "Enable a continuous human presence" (slide 33). Nothing in slides 1–33 says "by 2030". So "permanent" by 2030, "semi-permanent" from 2032 and "continuous" in Phase 3 all stand in NASA's material (Phases). Session 36 addition: the only "by 2030" in deck 2's slides 34–65 is the LTV contract's original plan, "Per current schedule, delivery to the lunar surface by 2030", which the deck says the Moon Base directive changes (slide 58). It is a rover date, not an outpost date. Phase 3's Habitats goal stays "Initial surface habitats > 100 m³" (slide 62) (source page). Session 38 addition: the phrase is on a NASA slide, not only in the Ignition page's summaries. SMD's Ignition deck announces the lunar payloads RFI as "supporting Artemis, lunar exploration, and a permanent lunar presence by 2030" (slide 16, source page). The nuclear deck puts LR-1 in 2030 without the words "Moon Base" or "permanent" (source page). The recap deck gives no Moon Base date. The question stands.

3. Whose Griffin lander? The May 2026 release calls Moon Base II's lander "Astrobotic's Griffin lander". The phases page and the August 2026 update say "Voyager Technologies' Griffin‑1", built at "Voyager's Lunar System Pittsburgh facility". The June 2026 release still names Astrobotic for two other deliveries. No source explains the change of name. The wiki prefers the newer (Voyager) and records both on Missions and assets.

4. NASA's Artemis page still describes Gateway as current. It says "Gateway is central to the NASA-led Artemis missions" and calls it "a multi-purpose outpost supporting lunar surface missions" (Artemis page, "Deep Space Exploration"). The Ignition release says "the agency intends to pause Gateway in its current form" (Ignition release), and the August 2026 update describes Gateway hardware being repurposed. The Artemis page is undated (its Gateway photo caption is April 2025), so the wiki treats its Gateway paragraph as not updated, and follows the Ignition release on Gateway. Is that right?

Session 33 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: cite as public.] An Ignition deck's text layer is marked "Pre-Decisional --- CUI". Every slide of ESDMD's Ignition deck "Returning to the Moon" (1-going-back-to-the-moon.pdf) begins, in its extracted text, with "Pre-Decisional --- CUI//SP-EXPT/SP-PROCURE/SP-PROPIN". None of the thirteen slide images opened shows it, so it seems to sit in a layer that doesn't print. NASA posts the deck publicly on its Ignition page. SCHEMA doesn't cover material whose own file carries a controlled-information marking. The wiki cites the deck like any other public source and records the marking on the source page. The wiki is meant for publishing: should it cite this deck, and the other Ignition decks if they carry the same line? The deck-2 session should check deck 2's text layer for it. Pages that cite deck 1 (session 33), in case the answer is no: its source page; Phases; the elements SLS, EGS, HLS, xEVA, Orion and Gateway; the index; open questions 9, 25 and 81; the log. Session 35 addition: deck 2, "Building the Moon Base", has no such line anywhere in its text layer (all 65 slides searched for "CUI" and "Pre-Decisional"). So the marking is deck 1's alone so far; decks 3 to 6 are still to check (source page). Session 38 addition: decks 3 to 6 have no "CUI" or "Pre-Decisional" line in their text layers (all four searched). Of the six Ignition decks, only deck 1 carries the marking. The question for the project lead stands for deck 1. Session 39 addition: the January 2026 industry and academia workshop deck has no "CUI" or "Pre-Decisional" line in its text layer (all 50 slides searched). Its file name reads industry-and-academia-for-export-control-v3.pdf and its title slide "Charts for Distribution"; both are recorded as printed on the source page, and the wiki cites the deck like any other public source. Session 41 addition: the February 2026 international deck and the eight partner posters have no "CUI", "Pre-Decisional" or "export" in their text layers (searched); the ESA and GISTDA posters, which have almost no text layer, show none on their images.

2. Small differences between Ignition-day documents. Recorded on the source pages, none acted on:

   • CLPS cadence: "up to 30 robotic landings starting in 2027" (release) against "30 robotic lunar landings within three years, starting in 2027" (science fact sheet) (source page).
   • Pressurized rovers: in Phase 2 as JAXA's (release, Ignition fact sheet, phases page), in Phase 3 as "Operating pressurized rovers" (Building the Moon Base fact sheet). Not necessarily a conflict: none says when the first operates. Session 35: the Moon Base Program's deck puts JAXA's Pressurized Rover in Phase 2's payload (slide 20) and its icon in 2031 on the Phase 2 table (slide 27), so it sides with the release and the phases page on delivery (source page). Session 36: its mobility slides agree: "Phase 2 Pressurized Rover" (slide 56) and "JAXA - Human Pressurized Exploration Rover" under Phase 2 (slide 57).
   • The suit: "Axiom AxEMU" (deck 1, slide 12) and "Axiom xEMU" (slide 18).
   • Two pairs of values with no labels: the 2028 landing plan's "2 to 4 EVAs / 1 to 2 EVAs" and "7 DAYS / 6 DAYS" under a "SpaceX/Blue Origin" title (deck 1, slide 18). The wiki doesn't assign them to a lander.
   • The LEO plan, preferred or alternate (session 38): the LEO fact sheet calls the core-module approach "NASA's Preferred Path"; the LEO deck calls it the "Alternate approach" and "Alternate option", is "open to continue with original commercial plan or to pivot", and asks for feedback "for both options" (slides 8, 10, 17, 18); the recap deck states it as the plan ("Expansion of the International Space Station with a core module and commercial modules"). Recorded on the deck 3 source page; LEO only, no Moon to Mars bearing.

Session 35 (2026-10-01)

1. LTV mass and speed: the March deck against the May release. The Moon Base Program's Ignition deck (26 March 2026) gives the LTVs "500 kg maximum rover mass" and "Max speed 10 km/hr" (slide 11). The May 2026 release gives Astrolab's CLV-1 "a mass of about 2,000 pounds" and "more than 6 mph on level terrain", and Lunar Outpost's Pegasus "more than 9 mph" (Ignition deck 2; May 2026 release). The wiki's arithmetic, kept here and not printed on any content page: 2,000 pounds is about 907 kg, above the deck's 500 kg maximum; 9 mph is about 14.5 km/h, above its 10 km/h; 6 mph is about 9.7 km/h. Possible readings the sources don't settle: the deck's figures are NASA's March requirements and the vendors' May designs differ, or "rover mass" means something other than the vehicle's mass. The wiki quotes both, notes the release is newer, and doesn't convert units on the page (Lunar Terrain Vehicle). Should it print the conversions? Session 36 addition, kept here and not on a content page: the same deck's procurement timeline calls CX-2 "Large Payload Delivery (500 kg Class)" (slide 63), and the Ignition page says CX-2 delivers the LTV. Joining the two (the wiki's join) gives another possible reading: the 500 kg may be the delivery class the LTV must fit, not the vehicle as built. No source says so. The deck also changes the LTV plan: Phase 1 vehicles are "Less complicated rovers, one-year design life" (slide 57), with a draft RFTP for "a more simplified variant" (slide 59). Session 57 note: NASA's Moon Base Systems page prints both on one page: the LTVs "operate at speeds up to six miles (10 kilometers) per hour", and, a few lines on, Pegasus drives "at speeds more than 9 mph" (Moon Base Systems). It gives no LTV mass of its own beyond CLV-1's "about 2,000 pounds".

Session 36 (2026-10-01)

1. [Date part decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Naming and scope" (a deck keeps its listing date; a probable earlier delivery date goes on its source page as the wiki's reading). The other differences below stay recorded as printed.] Ignition deck 2: its date, and differences inside it. Recorded on the source page as printed; none acted on.
   • Date. The Ignition page lists the deck as "Mar 26, 2026". Its slides say things were "issued today" (slide 48: CLPS draft RFTPs; slide 59: the LTV draft RFTP) and "posted to sam.gov today" (slide 40: RFIs), and its timeline dates those items "3 / 24" (slide 63). So it was probably given on Ignition day, 24 March 2026, and posted two days later (the wiki's reading). The wiki keeps 26 March, the listing date, and Phases still says the deck came "two days later" than the Ignition-day documents. Should the wiki date it 24 March? Session 38 addition: two more decks listed "Mar 26" point the same way. The LEO deck says "Look for RFI on SAM.gov on March 25th" and dates the Concept RFI "3/25/26" as a coming event (slides 17, 18), and the recap deck is headed "Recap of Today" (deck 3; deck 6). The wiki keeps the listing dates on the new source pages too, and gives this reading there. Session 59 note: The project lead decided this (SCHEMA, "Naming and scope": a deck keeps its listing date; a probable earlier delivery date goes on its source page as the wiki's reading). Phases, Needs and the index no longer say "two days later"; they say deck 2 is listed on 26 March.
   • 2036 launches: 8 on the Phase 3 table (slide 36), 7 on the summary (slide 37). Slide 36's sum matches slide 30's 29.
   • CS-8's class: "smaller science payloads (<100 kg)" (slide 48) against "Science Payload Delivery (150 kg Class) [CS-8]" (slide 63).
   • Site preparation and logistics rovers: a Phase 2 key mission (slide 25) but labeled "Phase 1 Site Preparation & Logistics" on the mobility render (slide 56).
   • Cargo return in Phase 3: "implement capability with mass goal of 500 kg" (slide 34) against "Demo med/large cargo return … Goal: 500 kg" (slide 62).
   • RTGs: the deck puts RTG power stations in Phase 2 and only RHU demonstrations in Phase 1 (slide 54), as the Building the Moon Base fact sheet does; the Users Guide, newer, names "radioisotope thermal generators" in its Phase 1 power target. The wiki keeps the guide as the reference and records the deck beside it (Needs).

Session 40 (2026-10-01)

1. Data gaps and Human Lunar Return: "sufficient data" for initial missions, yet 17 gaps in HLR? The January 2026 workshop's data-gaps briefing says "Sufficient data exist to enable initial Artemis Missions in Human Lunar Return (HLR)" and "Beyond initial missions, additional data is needed" (slide 41; source page). Seventeen of the 25 data gaps give HLR as their segment, which the Key sheet and the ADD define as when "the data is needed, but not necessarily when it is collected" (ADD p. 262; data gaps index). No December 2025 document has the slide's sentence (searched). Possible readings the sources don't settle: "initial Artemis Missions" are only the first missions of HLR, and the 17 gaps serve its later missions; or the segment field means something looser than the definition. The wiki records the slide beside the segment table (Briefed at the January 2026 workshop) and changes nothing. Should it say more? Session 41 addition: the February 2026 international deck repeats the caveat word for word (slide 30; source page).

Session 41 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Matching other lists to the gaps" (don't match partner posters' capabilities to the gaps by title; keep them on their source pages).] Partner posters' capabilities against the architecture's gaps: pair them or not? The eight partner posters from the February 2026 Rome workshop name capabilities on the same subjects as some technology gaps. Examples: the Luxembourg Space Agency's "Storage of thermal energy … for lunar night survival" and ESA's "Lunar night survival <2030" demonstration against #0301; LSA's "Storage and transfer of cryogenics" against #1106 and #1107; ASI's ORACLE oxygen extraction against #0601; ESA's "Dust mitigation systems" and ASA's "lunar dust mitigation technologies" against #0801. No poster cites a gap ID. A partner capability against a gap is not one of the joins SCHEMA lists ("Links and columns the wiki derives"), so the wiki made none: the posters' content sits on their source pages and in a table on RT-1. Should gap pages get a labeled "the pairing is the wiki's" bullet for partner posters, as they do for papers on the gap's subject? Such pairings would put partner claims on NASA gap pages.

   • Recorded on the source pages, not acted on: the Australian Space Agency's poster tags each item with objective and tenet codes of its own choosing, without suffixes (ASA poster); ASI's poster expands "MPH" as "Multipurpose Habitation Module", where the Ignition release has "Multi-purpose Habitats" (ASI poster).

Session 42 (2026-10-01)

1. Two element figures from a February 2025 briefing that Rev C doesn't carry. NASA's "Architecture Updates" deck for both February 2025 workshops (older than Rev C) introduces the two elements approved at ACR24 with one line each (source page):

   • Initial Surface Habitat: "up to 4 surface crew" (slide 12). Rev C: "two crew members … from a minimum of 7 and up to 33 days" (ADD p. 57). A contradiction; the wiki prefers Rev C, as the newer document and the reference, and records the slide on Initial Surface Habitat. Did the design change between the two, or does the slide count something else?
   • Lunar Surface Cargo Lander: "payload capacity on the order of 2 tons" (slide 13). Rev C gives no figure, so this is an omission, not a conflict. The Users Guide's Phase 1 cargo target is "Deployment of landers with two metric ton cargo delivery capability to the lunar South Pole region" (p. 10), and the guide names no lander. The wiki's element page sets them side by side in its February 2025 section and doesn't tie them; its Moon Base relevance is unchanged, because the deck predates the Moon Base (Lunar Surface Cargo Lander). A match by capacity figure is not one of the joins SCHEMA lists. Should the page make a labeled "the wiki's join" between the element and the guide's two-ton target, or leave it at the side-by-side? (Compare questions 45 and 58, on sizing the element from other figures.)

Session 43 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Matching other lists to the gaps" (don't match STMD's civil space shortfalls to the gaps by title; keep them on their source pages).] STMD's shortfalls against the technology gaps: pair them or not? The February 2025 "Foundational Exploration Gaps" deck for industry and academia shows STMD's 2024 ranking of civil space technology shortfalls, with its top 30 (slide 11, transcribed on the source page). Many titles are close to technology-gap titles: "1618: Survive and operate through the lunar night" and #0301; "1552: Extreme Environment Avionics" and #0201; "1554: High Performance Onboard Computing …" and #0202; "1520: Fire Safety for Habitation" and #0302; "792: In-space and On-surface Transfer of Cryogenic Fluids" and #1107, among others. The 2024 gaps paper says "the Civil Space Shortfalls document includes all the architecture-driven technology gaps" (p. 2), and the deck's STMD lessons include "Work with ESDMD and SMD counterparts to ensure 1-to-1 mapping for consistency and clarity" (slide 10). But no source the wiki holds gives the mapping, and a match by title is not one of the joins SCHEMA lists. So the wiki made none: the list stays on the source page, with a pointer from the gaps index. Should gap pages get a labeled "the wiki's join" line naming the shortfall with the nearest title, and its 2024 rank? (Compare question 85, on partner posters.) The slide points to the full results at "nasa.gov/civilspaceshortfalls" (slide 9), which is not among the sources.

   • Recorded on the source pages, not acted on: the international deck's "Expressed Partner Interest" dots on the integrated gaps have no key (shown as printed, not read as counts); the STMD and SOMD presenters are labeled "Science Mission Directorate" on their title slides; one deck dates a photo 19 February 2025, so it was finished on or after that day.

Session 45 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Matching other lists to the gaps" (where a source presents its items as ADD technology gaps without IDs, a title match on the gaps index is allowed, labeled as the wiki's). The rule doesn't add the gap-page pointer lines asked about below; none is queued.] The Mars Campaign Office's priority areas matched to gaps by title: keep it? The February 2025 Paths to Partnership deck lists "MCO Priority Development Areas" and ends "Other ADD technology gaps will be considered" (slide 21), so the slide itself presents the areas as ADD technology gaps, but prints no IDs. The wiki matched nine areas to gaps by title on the gaps index, labeled "the wiki's". Question 87 declined the same kind of title match for STMD's shortfalls, which no slide calls ADD gaps; that is the difference the wiki relied on. Keep the matches, drop the match column, or drop the table? If kept, the gap pages could each get one pointer line in a section "In the February 2025 workshop briefing" (older than Rev C; "the wiki's match by title"; Moon Base relevance unchanged): #0801 (cleaning tools, connectors and sealing surfaces, dust-tolerant fabrics and electrodynamic dust shields), #0903, #1106, #0305, #0302, #0401, #0402, #0405 and #0101 ("Lunar surface clock"; C&PNT "with LunaNet and SCaN coordination"). Nothing is queued for this until the project lead answers.

   • Also recorded, not acted on: the Paths deck's STMD slide prints the address techport.nasa.gov/opportunities (slide 14). It is transcribed on the source page only. SCHEMA keeps one quotation of TechPort, on the gaps index (question 36); does a slide's printed address on a source page fall under that rule?
   • On question 30: both February 2025 workshops held a "Logistics and Mobility" session (industry panels slide 5, partners' slide 2). The cards carry titles and speakers only, so they don't identify the Workshops page's 2025 "Lunar Mobility and Logistics" item or the Update's paper; the logistics white-paper briefing (queue item 71) may.

Session 46 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Matching other lists to the gaps" (a gap page may carry an earlier version of that same gap's table when a source prints it, #0101 and #0301, in a section named for the source).] A gap's Rev B table on its gap page: extend the #0101 exception? SCHEMA allows one older-source section on a gap page, #0101's "In the 2024 executive overview" (question 34, 47), because that overview printed #0101's own earlier table. The February 2025 technology-gaps briefing prints #0301's Rev B table the same way, as its example (slide 4), with a target of "150 (TBR) hours" where Rev C has 350, and no key decision. The wiki gave #0301 a short section, "In the February 2025 workshop briefing", on the same footing (#0301). It did not add Rev B rank lines to the other gap pages: the one home for Rev B's ranked list is the gaps index. Is a gap's own earlier table a general exception (any source that prints one), or should #0301's section move to the gaps index?

   • Recorded on the source pages, not acted on: the logistics briefing captions a picture of ESA's Argonaut "Lunar Surface Cargo Lander – ESA - Argonaut" (slide 4). Argonaut is "Up to 2.1 t" in the same slide's table, and the February 2025 Architecture Updates deck gives the Lunar Surface Cargo Lander element "on the order of 2 tons" (question 86). No source says Argonaut is, or fills, that element, and the wiki doesn't join them. The same briefing gives the LTV an uncrewed "1600 kg (reduced performance)" beside the 800 kg of the 2024 mobility paper, and a chart of "MPH" shadow duration with "MPH" unexpanded; the wiki doesn't read it as Ignition deck 2's "MPH" or ASI's habitation module.
   • On question 30: not settled; see the note there.

Session 47 (2026-10-01)

1. Six or seven 2023 elements: is the UAE's "Crew and Science Airlock Module" the "Gateway Airlock Module"? The 2023 executive overview says "In 2023, NASA added six new elements" and gives six cards, the "Gateway Airlock Module" among them with no partner (PDF p. 10). The February 2024 workshop's "New Elements" slide shows seven hexagons: the same six, plus a dashed "Crew and Science Airlock Module" with a United Arab Emirates dot, the same rendering, and "The United Arab Emirates Implementing Arrangement was signed shortly after ACR23. The collaboration will be included in ADD Rev-B during ACR24" (Overview and Updates, slide 10). By the 2024 overview, Gateway has one airlock, the "Crew and Science Airlock" (MBRSC), and Rev C's one-pager says it is "provided by the United Arab Emirates Mohammad Bin Rashid Space Centre" (p. 54). The wiki reads the two hexagons as one module, named for its partner after the agreement, and counts six 2023 elements (Gateway; Elements). The slide doesn't say so. Keep that reading, or record seven?

Session 48 (2026-10-01)

1. Mars lander figures: the February 2024 slide against the December 2024 EDL paper. The February 2024 "Mars Challenges" briefing's table, "How to Get to the Surface?", gives a "Human Class Lander Concept" of 16–19 m diameter, 47,000–65,000 kg entry mass and 36,000–40,000 kg landed mass (Mars challenges briefing, slide 5). The 2024 EDL white paper's Figure 5, under the same banner, gives a "Human-Scale Lander (Projected)" of "16+" m, "49 - 65" t and "26 - 36" t landed (EDL paper, p. 5). Seven heritage cells differ slightly too (Phoenix entry 602 kg against 0.573 t; Perseverance landed 1,026 kg against 1.050 t; the Curiosity, InSight and Perseverance entry masses; two diameters, 4.5 against 4.52 m). The slide calls the paper "Upcoming". The wiki keeps the paper's figures as the reference on Transportation Systems (newer, and a paper rather than a briefing) and records the slide's on its source page. Rev C's #1103 targets "25–75+ t". Worth asking the architecture team which landed mass is current?

Session 49 (2026-10-01)

1. [Decided by the project lead, 2026-10-01: SCHEMA.md, Conventions, "Naming and scope" (treated as a 2023 paper and cited by page). The rule doesn't mention the concept page; it is left as it is.] A 2023 white paper filed as a February 2024 briefing: where its content goes. The file the Workshops page lists as "White Paper Briefing: Lunar Site Selection" (2024-02-15-…) is not a slide deck but the 2023 paper "Lunar Site Selection" itself: five portrait pages, "2023 Moon to Mars Architecture Concept Review" in every footer (source page). The White Papers page links a 2023 "Lunar Site Selection" PDF of the same size (964 kB), not fetched, so not compared by hash. The SCHEMA's slide rules don't fit a paper, so the wiki treats it as a 2023 paper (context, cited by page). Site selection had no topic page, so following "a topic with no home gets a new concept page" (as with question 52), its content went to a new page, Lunar site selection, with a "Where Rev C stands" section on LD-03-L and the paper's content under "In the 2023 Lunar Site Selection white paper". Like the other concept pages it has no Moon Base relevance section; the paper doesn't mention the Moon Base. Keep the new page, or fold the content into Key definition tasks (LD-03-L) or Moon Base environment?

Session 54 (2026-10-01)

1. [Settled, 2026-10-01: the published site uses MkDocs' default toc rule, and all 11,154 links and 2,288 anchors resolve under it, checked with a script outside the wiki runs (queue item 99, as approved by the project lead; recorded in session 60, which did not rerun the check). The two Canadarm3 links keep the default form.] Which heading-anchor rule does the published site use? Every in-page link (page.md#heading) depends on how the site turns a heading into an anchor. The wiki's lint has assumed MkDocs' default (Python-Markdown's toc extension: lower case, punctuation and non-ASCII characters dropped, and any run of spaces and hyphens made into one hyphen). The project has no mkdocs.yml, so the site's own setting can't be checked from here. Under that rule every anchor link in the wiki resolves. One link depended on the rule: the Gateway heading "Gateway External Robotic System / Canadarm3" (ADD Rev C's own title for 2.3.4.2.1) gives gateway-external-robotic-system-canadarm3 under the default, but gateway-external-robotic-system--canadarm3 under a GitHub-style rule, which keeps one hyphen per space. The two links to it (Gateway, Elements) used the GitHub form and now use the default form. Can you confirm the site uses the default toc slugify? If it uses another slugify (for example a GitHub-style one), those two links should go back, and the anchor check should be rerun under that rule.

Session 55 (2026-10-01)

1. [Done, session 60 (queue item 99, part 4): each claim checked against all of sources/ and reworded as a plain claim naming what was searched. One was false: the Administrator's speech of 26 May 2026 ties Blue Moon MK1's Moon Base I to "Human Landing System missions" (now on HLS). #0803's "The ADD doesn't use the term xEMU" was also false (ADD p. 238) and is fixed. Other "so far" claims outside this list, not checked: "No source so far maps ADD segments" (Segments index, Architecture framework, Moon Base hub, Phases), "No source so far ties it to the Moon Base" (five Mars data-gap pages), and "only source so far" or "most direct … so far" on the Users Guide and Building the Moon Base fact sheet source pages and Phase 1 functional gaps. See the log.] "The sources read so far": nine topic pages still say it, and at least one may now be false. Queue a check? These pages were written before the workshop slides, the Ignition material and the newer Moon Base pages were read. Rewording them as plain claims needs a check of each against all of sources/, not only a change of wording, so the finished-pages pass (item 84) left them alone:

   • Lunar Surface Cargo Lander and Lunar Utility Rover, "Changes since Rev C": "None recorded in the sources read so far"
   • Exploration Ground Systems, Moon Base relevance: "The Moon Base sources read so far don't name EGS". Probably stale, or at least unclear: the same page's "Changes since Rev C" quotes Ignition deck 1 on EGS (slides 12 and 15). Whether an Ignition deck counts as a "Moon Base source" is not settled anywhere
   • Exploration EVA System: the same Moon Base sentence, and "no source read so far" on the term "xEMU"
   • Human Landing System: "No source read so far ties it to the HLS"
   • Space Launch System, three: which launcher configuration is standard, whether the Mobile Launcher 2 transition holds, and the Moon Base sentence
   • RT-1: what happens to the lander
   • Objectives: "no revision of the 2022 set"

   "Not established by the sources so far", the SCHEMA's wording for Moon Base relevance, is not part of this. Should a lint item check these nine pages against all sources, and does an Ignition deck count as a Moon Base source for the "don't name" sentences?

Session 57 (2026-10-01)

1. The Ignition date: 23 or 24 March 2026? The Administrator's Moon Base speech of 26 May 2026 says "On March 23rd, we shared with the world exactly how we intend to achieve the vision … We hosted an event we called Ignition" (speech). The Ignition release and fact sheets are dated 24 March, and the Media Resources page lists the briefing on "March 24, 2026"; the realignment release says "in late March". The wiki keeps 24 March and records the speech's date on its source page. Is there a reason to think the event began on the 23rd?

2. Apollo surface EVA time: "80 hours" or "~159 hours"? The Administrator's speech says "a combined 80 hours of lunar astronaut EVA time across the Apollo missions", and the Moon Base Program Manager "about 80 hours working on the surface of the moon total" (podcast, as reported). The February 2024 surface EVA briefing gives "Six total Apollo partial-gravity lunar surface missions (14 EVAs totaling ~159 hours)" (Mobility Systems). None of the three says how it counts (per EVA or per crew member). Recorded side by side on the source pages; the wiki doesn't reconcile them. Leave it so?

   Also recorded this session, no question needed: the temperatures differ between the speech ("over 250 degrees", "well below minus 200", no unit), the podcast (host: "negative 334 degrees Fahrenheit to over 130"; guest: "close to 200" and "close to minus 200"); each is kept on its source page, not on Environment.

3. The Pressurized Rover: missions of "up to 28 days" or "up to 30 days"? ADD Rev C: "extended exploration missions lasting up to 28 days with up to 14 days between cargo resupplies" (p. 63). NASA's Moon Base Systems page: "Designed to support two astronauts in a shirt-sleeve environment for up to 30 days" (Moon Base Systems). Ignition deck 2's key-mission slide on the rover (slide 22) gives no duration. The Pressurized Rover page records both and notes the web page is newer, without replacing Rev C's figure. A change of requirement, or two roundings of one figure?

4. Moon Base II and III: before the end of 2026, or 2027? The Administrator's speech of 26 May 2026: "Both Moon Base II and Moon Base III are targeted to launch before the end of 2026" (speech). The Moon Base Program Manager, recorded 14 August 2026, as reported: "There'll be one, hopefully, one this year, and multiple next year", and "The Astrobotic is perhaps doing a mission next year that will deliver the flip rover" (podcast). Both are on Missions and assets; the table there keeps its "launch late 2026" and "this year" entries from the documents. Is there a newer schedule?

5. The Administrator's own posted texts: cite directly, or "as reported"? SCHEMA (q. 74) says a NASA article reporting a talk is cited "as reported", with the speaker named. The 26 May speech and the 22 May workforce note are the Administrator's own words, posted by him on NASA's workforce blog, not an article about them. The wiki cites both directly, by name, and ranks them below the architecture documents, pending this question. The podcast is cited "as reported", as its queue item asked. Keep that split?

   Notes on older questions from this session's sources:

   • 77 (2030 or 2032 for a permanent presence): the Administrator's Directive 6 of 22 May 2026 creates the Moon Base Program "to enable a sustained U.S. presence on the Moon by 2030" (workforce note), beside the two Ignition RFIs' "permanent … by 2030"; the web pages still put Phase Three at "2032–Beyond".
   • 9 (which Artemis mission is the first crewed Moon Base mission): the program manager, as reported, puts "one Artemis IV human landing with some limited interaction, especially with the LTV" in Phase 1. A podcast ranks below the documents, so this doesn't settle the question.
   • 78 (Griffin-1: Voyager or Astrobotic): the speech also says "The Astrobotic Griffin lander", and so does the podcast ("The Astrobotic").

Session 58 (2026-10-01)

No new question. Notes on older questions from this session's sources:

• 10 (still open: "the Lunar Surface Technologies solicitation on SAM.gov"): NASA's own pages about it are now held. It is NextSTEP-3 Appendix A, the Lunar Enabling Infrastructure Accelerator, solicitation 80GRC026R0008 (the wiki's match by name and five areas; September release). Its topics address gaps "as identified in NASA's Civil Space Shortfalls" (draft-input article). The SAM.gov documents themselves are still not among the sources.

• 78 (Griffin-1: Voyager or Astrobotic): NASA's CLPS timeline graphic, uploaded July 2025, also says "Astrobotic Technology* Griffin Mission One" (CLPS timeline graphic). It is older than every 2026 source, so it doesn't show which name is current.

Session 61 (2026-10-01)

Note on an older question:

• 97 (the pressurized rover, 28 or 30 days): it is not only Rev C against a newer page. NASA's Moon Base Phases page, also from 2026, keeps "up to 28 days with up to 14 days between cargo resupplies" (Moon Base Phases, "Pressurized Rover"), so two of NASA's 2026 web pages differ. The overview's table and the Pressurized Rover page now say so.

• Content pages that name SCHEMA. About 40 source pages cite the wiki's rules by name in their opening lines, mostly "(SCHEMA, "Workshop slides")" on the slide and poster pages, and "SCHEMA (q. 74)" or "SCHEMA (questions 85, 87)" on a few web-page sources (found with a search for "SCHEMA" outside log.md, queue.md, open-questions.md, SCHEMA.md and index.md). The project's plan, not yet confirmed, is to keep SCHEMA.md private when the wiki is published, and queue item 99 had the overview's lead-in reworded without naming it. If the plan holds, these mentions point readers to a page they won't have; none links to it. This session removed the one link, on Phases, and rewrote that sentence as a plain claim. Should the source pages' mentions be reworded the same way (for example, "A briefing, not the architecture of record" with no rule cited), or kept because SCHEMA.md will be published after all?