Assess whether the carve-out is operable on day one (501bdf)

SITUATION A PE platform evaluating a founder-led SaaS add-on cannot treat a contractor who actually wrote the core code as incidental context on regulatory-approval critical-path calendar. Integration-risk PMO must close the carve-out is operable from that extract under M&A Due Diligence / People and Contracts.

DECISION Integration-risk PMO in a PE platform evaluating a founder-led SaaS add-on must choose Proceed / Reprice / Walk / Hold using regulatory-approval critical-path calendar after a contractor who actually wrote the core code.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Regulatory-approval critical-path calendar reads as Proceed once a contractor who actually wrote the core code is lined up to the same M&A Due Diligence population. 2. Regulatory-approval critical-path calendar is closer to Reprice after a contractor who actually wrote the core code; Proceed would over-claim this People and Contracts extract. 3. Walk is still live in regulatory-approval critical-path calendar for integration-risk PMO in a PE platform evaluating a founder-led SaaS add-on. 4. Regulatory-approval critical-path calendar is missing the fact integration-risk PMO needs after a contractor who actually wrote the core code; stop this M&A Due Diligence close.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Name the document integration-risk PMO still needs before signing. 2. Test whether a contractor who actually wrote the core code is a diligence gap, a price chip, or a walk-away. 3. Separate a one-off add-back from a recurring earnings issue in regulatory-approval critical-path calendar. 4. For this M&A Due Diligence People and Contracts file, read regulatory-approval critical-path calendar against a contractor who actually wrote the core code and write the one fact that would move the carve-out is operable for integration-risk PMO.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Proceed / Reprice / Walk / Hold on this M&A Due Diligence / People and Contracts packet (regulatory-approval critical-path calendar after a contractor who actually wrote the core code). Lead with the M&A Due Diligence option regulatory-approval critical-path calendar can support after a contractor who actually wrote the core code, then the two facts that force it, then the Monday action for integration-risk PMO in a PE platform evaluating a founder-led SaaS add-on.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line M&A Due Diligence option on the carve-out is operable, then the evidence in regulatory-approval critical-path calendar, then the action for integration-risk PMO - Hypothesis scorecard against regulatory-approval critical-path calendar: supported / rejected / untestable - People and Contracts finding in regulatory-approval critical-path calendar that a second reviewer can re-perform - Missing page in regulatory-approval critical-path calendar after a contractor who actually wrote the core code, if any