Record driving deadlines for #1 (provisional expiry) and #2 (December deliverable)

Clarified 2026-08-29 with the author: "no hurry" is wrong for #1 and #2.

  - #1 (Hosted StarForth): the provisional will expire before conversion. Its
    priority claim is time-boxed (provisional filed ~Dec 2025, window ~Dec
    2026); if the non-provisional isn't filed claiming benefit before the
    window lapses the priority is lost and the same subject matter can't be
    re-staked by refiling thereafter. Hard clock regardless of December scope.
  - #2 (full StarshipOS): the December deliverable that keeps the flagship
    covered; pending counsel confirmation it may also be the conversion
    vehicle for #1's provisional.

Open point to resolve: is #2 (or the December delivery) the conversion vehicle
for #1, or is #1 converted by a filing separate from #2? Decision record only;
no filing made. Authoritative form in ROADMAP.md; FABRIC-3.md tracks it.

docs/lithosananke/ROADMAP.md

@@ -95,6 +95,23 @@ with one caveat about the pre-existing provisional:
 - **Patent 3 + mark Compudynamics.** The Zynq hardware steady-state machinery with sealed
   executions, HOL-proven — anchored by the physics-adaptive runtime.
 
+**Driving deadlines (why "no hurry" is wrong for #1 and #2), clarified 2026-08-29.** Two
+clocks bind the near term, independent of product #3 and the FPGA:
+
+- **#1 — the provisional will expire before conversion.** Its priority claim is time-boxed:
+  if the non-provisional isn't filed claiming benefit before the provisional's window lapses
+  (provisional filed ~Dec 2025 → window ~Dec 2026), the provisional's priority is lost and
+  the same subject matter cannot be re-staked by refiling thereafter. So #1 is on a hard
+  clock regardless of the December scope.
+- **#2 — full StarshipOS is the December deliverable.** This is what "keeps the flagship
+  covered": the standalone-OS product (and, pending confirmation below, possibly the vehicle
+  that converts #1's provisional) must deliver by December.
+
+- **Open point to resolve with counsel:** is **#2's** application (or the December delivery)
+  the **conversion vehicle** for #1's provisional — i.e., does it claim benefit from the
+  #1 provisional and thereby secure what would otherwise lapse — or is #1 converted by a
+  filing separate from #2? Captured as a decision record; no filing made.
+
 **Relationship to the existing provisional (must be reconciled, not assumed).** The repo
 already carries a **"Patent pending"** USPTO **provisional filed December 2025** for the
 physics-grounded self-adaptive runtime (the Compudynamics adaptive runtime), sourced in