Document begins

Internal Document Dependency Map

Date: 18 May 2026 | Last synced: 2026-05-18 | Internal only — not for public release. Purpose: cross-link existing internal docs to workplan streams, surface open questions, and identify what needs human action vs further research.

DEPRECATED — 2026-05-19. This file is a historical snapshot. It is no longer updated. The synthesis brief (internal/synthesis/current-state.md, generated by scripts/synthesize_state.py) is the live reconciliation layer. GitHub issues are the work ledger. Refer to those, not this file.

Document Index

GitHub issues: Access to adrianwedd/bottom-pub-coop was unavailable at last sync — no issue cross-references confirmed. Re-check when access is restored.

Stream-to-Document Map

Stream 0 — Steering Committee Formation

No document yet. Outputs needed: conflict-of-interest protocol, authorised receivers-contact appointment, decision log template. These are human governance tasks, not research tasks.

Task status:

Blocking everything else: Task 0.4 (appoint authorised contact for the appointed receivers). Until this is done, Stream 1 is stalled on tasks 1.1 and 1.6+.

Stream 1 — Property Status & Liaison

Primary doc: property_status_check.md

Task status:

Open questions from property_status_check.md:

• HUMAN CHECK REQUIRED (high priority): Visit commercialrealestate.com.au/for-sale/cygnet-tas-7112/hotel-leisure/ — Google’s index shows one hotel/leisure listing for Cygnet; unknown if it’s the Commercial Hotel.
• Check realestate.com.au and domain.com.au manually (blocked scraping).
• Check specialist hotel brokers: HTL Property, CBRE Hotels, JLL Hotels, Savills Hotels.
• Search ASIC published notices for “Commercial Hotel Cygnet” or “Cygnet Hybrid Trust.”
• Search Heritage Tasmania online register for Place ID 3472 — confirm current Works Applications.
• Title search: LPI/Land Tasmania — confirm whether commercial building and ~0.5 ha residential land is single title or separable. (Feeds assumptions book 1.5, 1.6; feeds Stream 3 capital model.)

Stream 3 dependency: Section 6, item 6.1 (receiver asking price) cannot be populated until authorised contact is made. Section 6, item 6.2 (title structure) requires a title search.

Stream 2 — Legal Structure & Governance

Primary docs: lawyer_brief_draft.md, legal_licensing_brief.md, liquor_licensing_reform_status.md Related epics: EPIC-002 (legal structure options), EPIC-003 (liquor licensing pathway), EPIC-005 (governance architecture)

Task status:

lawyer_brief_draft.md — the brief is substantively ready. It:

• Frames the distributing/non-distributing binary correctly (s.18 vs s.19 CNL)
• Flags the earlier draft’s illegal straddle (returns + asset lock in the same instrument)
• Covers CCU legality, ASIC overlap, membership classification, and the employed-manager liquor licence pathway
• Has placeholder fields: [Name, Role], [DATE], [Email/Phone] — HUMAN ACTION required to fill and send

Open questions surfaced in the brief itself:

• A1: Distributing vs non-distributing — written legal opinion required
• A2: Can a non-distributing co-op issue debentures paying interest? (The CNL provisions are complex here)
• A3: Confirm the earlier straddle is unlawful — get written confirmation for the record
• B1: Who can hold the liquor licence? (s.22 natural person requirement)
• B2: Associate scrutiny under s.3A — every co-op board director is an associate of the licensee

liquor_licensing_reform_status.md — one outstanding check:

• HUMAN CHECK: Open parliament.tas.gov.au bills register and search “Liquor Licensing” — confirm whether any amending bill has been introduced or passed. If the reform has passed, the employed-manager pathway analysis changes materially.

Stream 3 dependency: Assumptions book Section 6, item 6.19 (structure choice) blocks all capital instrument design. Lawyer opinion is the prerequisite.

Stream 6 dependency: Operating model cannot be finalised until liquor licence pathway is confirmed (employed-manager model vs direct co-op licence).

Stream 3 — Finance & Capital Feasibility

Primary doc: finance_assumptions_book.md Related epic: EPIC-004 (financial model and capital stack)

Task status:

The assumptions book is the canonical financial register. Its Section 6 lists 20 unpopulated inputs. Mapping each to the stream that unblocks it:

The two items that are actually “human check now, costs nothing”: 6.12 and 6.13. Both sources are public. No professional required.

Stream 4 — Building, Heritage & Planning

Primary doc: heritage_desktop_research.md

Task status:

The works classification table (9 categories) is complete. Key findings already resolved:

• Heritage tier: State [FACT] — confirmed from Heritage Tasmania datasheet. The property is permanently registered at State level (not National). This resolves the meeting-transcript ambiguity.
• Curtilage: Whole of Title [FACT] — any ground works within the title area requires heritage approval.
• No Statement of Significance [FACT] — places listed prior to 2007 did not receive one. A Conservation Management Plan should be prepared by a heritage architect to address this gap before major works.
• Later additions [FACT] — the register description explicitly notes “later additions to each side.” These may be non-significant fabric, allowing simpler approval pathways for works to those sections. Requires Heritage Council confirmation.

Open questions from this doc:

• Task 4.3: Define minimum viable opening scope — the single most important building output for the business plan. Cannot be done without physical access.
• Task 4.4: Scope independent structural and building condition assessment — get quotes before commissioning.
• Task 4.6: Commission assessment — depends on Stream 1 physical access.
• Heritage architect: Which fabric in the original double-storey section is “significant” vs which later additions are “non-significant”? The answer changes the approval category and cost for multiple works items.

Stream 6 dependency: The minimum viable opening scope (task 4.3) is the critical input to the path-to-profitability model (Stream 6, task 6.6). Stream 6 cannot produce a meaningful model without it.

Stream 5 — Community & Communications

Related epic: EPIC-001 (stage discipline and public messaging)

Task status:

No internal research document yet. Outputs needed:

• Updated EOI database (Billie has the ~68 names)
• Skills and interest inventory from EOI list
• Steering committee membership published once formed

Stream 6 — Operating Model & Business Plan

No primary document yet. Stream 6 is a synthesis stream — it waits on Streams 2, 3, and 4 for detailed model inputs. Related epics: EPIC-005 (governance architecture), EPIC-007 (due diligence and decision gates)

Task status:

What it needs before it can produce meaningful output:

1. Stream 2 structure decision (lawyer opinion + steering committee decision)
2. Stream 3 capital model (both structure scenarios)
3. Stream 4 minimum viable opening scope

Research Cell — Case Studies & Evidence

Related epic: EPIC-006 (case study and evidence base)

Task status:

What Needs Human Action Now

These cannot be resolved by further desk research or agent work:

What Agents Can Do Next (No Human Dependency)

Critical Path (in dependency order)

Stream 0: Authorised contact appointed  [BLOCKED-BY-HUMAN]
  └─ Stream 1: receivers contact made  [BLOCKED-BY-HUMAN — task 0.4]
      └─ Stream 1: Property status confirmed
          └─ Stream 1: Title search
              └─ Stream 3: Capital model (both structure scenarios)
                  └─ Stream 6: Path-to-profitability

Stream 2: Lawyer brief sent  [BLOCKED-BY-HUMAN — placeholder fields]
  └─ Stream 2: Written legal opinion received
      └─ Steering committee: Structure decision (distributing/non-distributing)
          └─ Stream 3: Capital instruments designed
          └─ Stream 6: Operating model finalised

Stream 1: Physical access arranged  [BLOCKED-BY-HUMAN — task 0.4 + 1.1]
  └─ Stream 4: Independent building assessment commissioned
      └─ Stream 4: Minimum viable opening scope
          └─ Stream 6: Path-to-profitability

Parallel work that can start now (no human dependency):

Stream 2: Research tasks (2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5)  [UNBLOCKED]
Stream 3: Assumptions book + scenario modelling (3.1–3.5)  [UNBLOCKED]
Stream 4: Desktop tasks (4.4 scoping, 4.5 BCA/DDA research)  [UNBLOCKED]
Stream 5: EOI update, skills inventory, comms channels (5.1–5.3, 5.5–5.6)  [UNBLOCKED]
Stream 6: All desktop research tasks (6.1–6.5)  [UNBLOCKED]
Research cell: R.1–R.3  [UNBLOCKED]

Stage 1 exit gate: All three critical-path threads above need to deliver before the steering committee can answer the Stage 1 exit question: “Is there enough credible community support and enough plausible feasibility to spend money on formal Stage 2 due diligence?”

Gaps That Could Not Be Resolved Without Human Knowledge

The following items remain open after this sync pass. They require human input or action:

1. GitHub issue cross-references — access to adrianwedd/bottom-pub-coop was not available at sync time. If issues exist that cross-reference stream tasks (especially Stream 1 property status, Stream 2 lawyer brief), those links are not captured here.
2. Steering committee seats — named individuals — workplans.md names Lachlan (building seat) and Molly (legal/governance) as potential resources. Whether either has been conflict-checked or confirmed is unknown. The conflict-of-interest protocol (task 0.2) must be completed before seats are confirmed.
3. Previous-purchaser reports retrieval — Billie mentioned access to the asbestos and building reports at the meeting. Whether these have been formally shared with the steering group is unknown. This is a Stream 4 prerequisite that requires a human to follow up.
4. Property listing status — whether the Commercial Hotel is currently actively listed, under offer, or in a different stage of the receivership process is unknown. The 2–3 week window from the 11 May email may have passed. Human browser check (priority 3 above) is needed immediately.
5. Interim entity decision — whether an interim entity (incorporated association) has been or should be formed to hold communications and receive EOI data before co-op registration is a steering committee decision. Stream 2 task 2.5 can research the options; the decision itself requires human sign-off.