Assess whether the carve-out is operable on day one (fcbb77)

SITUATION After a contractor who actually wrote the core code, carve-out stranded-cost model is the working evidence for buy-side QoE lead in a sponsor doing confirmatory after a tight auction. Decide whether the carve-out is operable on day one using only what carve-out stranded-cost model actually supports.

DECISION Buy-side QoE lead in a sponsor doing confirmatory after a tight auction must choose Proceed, Reprice, Walk, Hold using carve-out stranded-cost model after a contractor who actually wrote the core code. The question on that file is whether the carve-out is operable on day one.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. A contractor who actually wrote the core code is noise around an already-controlled Separation and Integration process in a sponsor doing confirmatory after a tight auction, given carve-out stranded-cost model. 2. A contractor who actually wrote the core code is the event in carve-out stranded-cost model that forces Proceed for buy-side QoE lead under M&A Due Diligence. 3. Carve-out stranded-cost model shows a one-file miss after a contractor who actually wrote the core code, not a Separation and Integration program failure. 4. Carve-out stranded-cost model cannot decide the carve-out is operable yet after a contractor who actually wrote the core code; hold is the only M&A Due Diligence close a sponsor doing confirmatory after a tight auction can defend.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Map reps, earnout mechanics, and integration risk a sponsor doing confirmatory after a tight auction would inherit. 2. Tie quality-of-earnings, working-capital, and contingent items in carve-out stranded-cost model to the carve-out is operable. 3. Name the document buy-side QoE lead still needs before signing. 4. For this M&A Due Diligence Separation and Integration file, read carve-out stranded-cost model against a contractor who actually wrote the core code and write the one fact that would move the carve-out is operable for buy-side QoE lead.

RECOMMENDATION On this M&A Due Diligence / Separation and Integration decision, bind Proceed to carve-out stranded-cost model after a contractor who actually wrote the core code: if carve-out stranded-cost model supports it, buy-side QoE lead executes Proceed in a sponsor doing confirmatory after a tight auction and logs the owner. If carve-out stranded-cost model instead fits Reprice, take that path. Where carve-out stranded-cost model after a contractor who actually wrote the core code is silent, buy-side QoE lead must do not proceed, reprice, or walk on a quality-of-earnings fact the packet does not carry.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line M&A Due Diligence option on the carve-out is operable, then the evidence in carve-out stranded-cost model, then the action for buy-side QoE lead - Hypothesis scorecard against carve-out stranded-cost model: supported / rejected / untestable - Separation and Integration finding in carve-out stranded-cost model that a second reviewer can re-perform - Missing page in carve-out stranded-cost model after a contractor who actually wrote the core code, if any