scope-steward Scope steward | Keep the mission personal, non-commercial, message-only, and evidence-first before any authority route is interpreted. | - Does the current mission statement still avoid commercial service, public connectivity, remote sensing, and launch-service claims?
- Does every public claim map to evidence, no-go status, or a source-backed gate?
- Has the not-goal list been reviewed beside the authority matrix?
| A current not-goal list and a public-claims boundary note. | Any service, remote-sensing, launch-service, or hardware-build claim enters the mission wording. | |
qualified-regulatory-counsel Qualified regulatory counsel | Distinguish amateur-satellite, experimental, Part 25-style, payload-review, remote-sensing, and debris/disposal questions without treating public source reading as legal advice. | - Which communications authority path is a candidate, and which paths are ruled out?
- What filing, responsibility, stop-transmission, and evidence questions must be answered before any commitment?
- Does a remote-sensing negative check remain valid for the current payload definition?
| A written path-mapping memo with open questions and no-go triggers. | A candidate path is treated as selected before qualified review. | |
amateur-satellite-mentor Amateur-satellite mentor or coordinator | Test whether the mission can remain compatible with amateur-satellite purpose, operator responsibility, coordination expectations, and non-commercial boundaries. | - Can the verified-message goal fit amateur-satellite purpose without becoming a service?
- What operator-responsibility and coordination questions must be answered before any technical planning?
- What would make the amateur path inappropriate?
| A suitability note that either preserves the amateur path as candidate or explicitly rules it out. | The amateur path is used as a shortcut around other duties or for any pecuniary / service purpose. | |
payload-integrator-reviewer Payload and integrator reviewer | Translate the verified-message objective into payload boundaries, interface responsibilities, evidence handoff, and hosted-payload feasibility. | - Can the message objective be hosted without full spacecraft ownership?
- Which roles own payload definition, integration evidence, operations evidence, and post-mission records?
- What information is needed before any payload-review or integration conversation is meaningful?
| A payload-minimum memo and role / responsibility map. | Integration is discussed as commitment before payload minimums, roles, evidence, and authority dependencies are mapped. | |
disposal-evidence-reviewer Disposal and evidence reviewer | Keep disposal, debris mitigation, stored-energy questions, and post-mission records attached to the verified-message success criterion. | - What disposal and post-mission records would be required before any orbit choice is credible?
- Which debris and stored-energy questions are blockers rather than later paperwork?
- What evidence would be needed after success or no-go?
| A disposal-evidence checklist and stop-condition map. | Orbit, integration, or success is discussed without disposal and post-mission evidence context. | |
public-claims-reviewer Public-claims reviewer | Ensure public pages never overclaim authorization, safety, commercial readiness, or mission success. | - Does the public page say only what the evidence packet supports?
- Are no-go outcomes presented as valid progress rather than failure to hide?
- Are private details, partner terms, and operational data absent?
| A public-claims note before each public North Star update. | A received signal, partner discussion, or review step is framed as proof of authorization, safety, or readiness. | |