Release v0.1.16

docs/CONNECTED_GOVERNANCE_PLATFORM_ROADMAP.md

@@ -18,7 +18,8 @@ Read it together with:
 
 - the [institutional governance target architecture](INSTITUTIONAL_GOVERNANCE_TARGET_ARCHITECTURE.md)
 - the [selected reference-journey program](REFERENCE_JOURNEY_PROGRAM.md)
-- the [current capability and infrastructure fit assessment](CAPABILITY_AND_INFRASTRUCTURE_FIT.md)
+- the [current strategy status](STRATEGY_STATUS.md)
+- the [pinned Campaign capability and infrastructure fit assessment](CAPABILITY_AND_INFRASTRUCTURE_FIT.md)
 - the [interface pattern language](INTERFACE_PATTERN_LANGUAGE.md)
 - the [interface surface inventory](INTERFACE_SURFACE_INVENTORY.md)
 - the [module contract and install model](MODULE_CONTRACTS_AND_INSTALLS.md)
@@ -41,8 +42,8 @@ Read it together with:
 - Use [Near-term portfolio order](#near-term-portfolio-order) for the bridge to
   implementation and [Product decisions](#product-decisions-to-make-progressively)
   for choices that can remain deferred.
-- Use the [dated snapshot appendix](#snapshot-appendix-2026-07-20) only to
-  understand which live backlog and release facts informed this revision.
+- Use the [dated strategic review](STRATEGIC_REVIEW_2026-08-05.md) to understand
+  why the current convergence and reference-journey order was chosen.
 
 ### Planning ownership
 
@@ -50,7 +51,7 @@ Read it together with:
 | --- | --- |
 | What product should GovOPlaN become, for whom, in which configurations, and through which outcome horizons? | This meta roadmap |
 | Which module owns a capability, which technical wave should deliver it, and what implementation gates apply? | The Core master roadmap and owning-module concepts |
-| What is actively planned, blocked, implemented, or closed now? | Gitea issues |
+| What is actively planned, blocked, implemented, or closed now? | Gitea issues and the dated reconciliation in `STRATEGY_STATUS.md` |
 | What can a named composition credibly claim in a target environment? | A dated capability/infrastructure fit assessment |
 
 The horizons and near-term order below express product outcomes and portfolio
@@ -1351,71 +1352,10 @@ language, what service it configured, who can act, which systems participate,
 what happens when they fail, how a decision can be reviewed, and where the
 evidence remains—and the product can prove that explanation at runtime.
 
-## Snapshot appendix: 2026-07-20
+## Dated Context
 
-This appendix records volatile facts that informed this revision. It is not a
-second source of truth and should be refreshed or removed when a later roadmap
-review uses a new release/backlog snapshot.
-
-### Composition and release snapshot
-
-The cross-repository contract scan found 43 module manifest contracts, 29
-provided interface names, 16 requirements, and no contract error across 65
-scanned repositories. That is meaningful composition evidence, but the release
-metadata trailed the integrated code: Core, Policy, Poll, and Scheduling
-declared `0.1.9` while the whole-product release requirements remained on
-module tag `v0.1.8`; the root self-hosted `.env.example` and release smoke
-composition did not yet exercise all installed release modules. Other
-development compositions already included some of those modules. This was a
-release/composition gap, not evidence that the underlying slices did not exist.
-
-### Backlog snapshot
-
-The Gitea audit found 206 open issues across 36 of 66 catalogued repositories
-and 362 closed issues. Campaign had 51 open issues and Core 44; together they
-held 46% of current work. This reflected substantial completed kernel,
-security, and platform work and a deliberate concentration on the first usable
-vertical, but also risked crowding out production evidence and the shared
-process spine.
-
-The issue workflow needed a reconciliation pass before another delivery
-program could be inferred from labels: 119 open issues remained in triage, 116
-had no milestone, and several recently pushed Calendar, Scheduling, Poll,
-Campaign, and Files slices still described themselves as local or awaiting
-integration. Conversely, 30 repositories had no open issue; for many
-later-wave modules this meant no implementation program had been opened, not
-that the capability was complete.
-
-[Poll #2](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan-poll/issues/2) was a clear
-tracker-drift example: its configurable transition engine, agreed transition
-matrix/history, idempotent keyed retries, re-decision audit, archive/unarchive,
-and preservation behavior were implemented and pushed while the issue still
-reported `needs-info`.
-
-Issue anchors that informed the bridge from the baseline into this roadmap:
-
-- [Meta #10](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan/issues/10) for the
-  capability/infrastructure assessment and its target proof;
-- [Meta #11](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan/issues/11) for the
-  universal interface and focused-view direction;
-- [Core #225](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan-core/issues/225) for
-  guided, safe configuration;
-- [Core #29](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan-core/issues/29) for the
-  backup/restore production gate;
-- [Core #263](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan-core/issues/263) and
-  [Campaign #63](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan-campaign/issues/63),
-  [#62](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan-campaign/issues/62),
-  [#65](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan-campaign/issues/65), and
-  [#69](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan-campaign/issues/69) for the
-  reference interface/delivery vocabulary and behavior;
-- [Poll #1](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan-poll/issues/1) for the
-  database-enforced respondent invariant exposed by Scheduling;
-- [Connectors #6](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan-connectors/issues/6)
-  for the governed connector configuration/simulation foundation;
-- [Meta #9](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan/issues/9) for the first
-  permit-to-payment reference process; and
-- [Meta #12](https://git.add-ideas.de/GovOPlaN/govoplan/issues/12) for the
-  deliberately deferred, consumer-independent export-control story.
-
-Live Gitea issue state remains canonical. These dated facts explain the roadmap
-sequence only.
+The volatile release and backlog appendix that originally accompanied this
+roadmap has been removed so the durable direction cannot become a competing
+status source. The [Strategic Review 2026-08-05](STRATEGIC_REVIEW_2026-08-05.md)
+retains the dated assessment and reasoning. Current reconciliation belongs in
+[Strategy Status](STRATEGY_STATUS.md), and live work state belongs in Gitea.