A further clarity issue emerged in the scheduling view: a single pending status conflated permission to author an engineering plan with permission to execute it. The revised structure exposes these as separate columns in every execution wave. Planning may begin while producer contracts are still being finalized, but the executable handoff must bind accepted inputs and pass its own checks. Repeated plan rows represent slices within one plan, avoiding duplicate plan ownership. A single summary document owns the waves and checkpoints, with former duplicate flow documents reduced to references. This verifies document consistency and dependency structure; it does not establish runtime readiness.

A verified documentation design separates observed progress, proposed parallel work, and execution admission. Producer handoffs carry the actual dependencies, while recurring schema checkpoints identify affected consumers and competing writers. Presentation work follows its own backend rather than waiting for unrelated lanes; integrated orchestration waits for all required backend contracts. Proposed intermediate handoffs do not substitute for terminal plan completion. Local checks covered document links, registry coverage, dependency cycles, consumer gates and change scope; the broader validator produced the same findings as its baseline. This applies existing dependency-graph and single-writer guidance to a particular tracker, so no additional reusable skill is warranted.

I am examining a documentation-only scheduling design. Some work can proceed independently, while database migrations, generated schema artifacts, shared runtime writers, and final validation require serialized ownership. The tracker must distinguish observed progress from proposed task splits and must not imply that a scheduling proposal grants execution authority.