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.

FABRIC-3.md

@@ -3520,5 +3520,10 @@ steady-state/sealed-execution HOL-proven hardware, anchored by the physics-adapt
 Open for reconciliation with counsel: the repo already has a **"Patent pending"** USPTO
 provisional (filed Dec 2025) for the Compudynamics physics-adaptive runtime (`docs/patent/`);
 patent 3 and the three product applications must be positioned relative to it (continuation?
-additive?) — recorded as intent here, nothing filed or drafted. Authoritative form in
-`ROADMAP.md` "IP framing of the three products".
+additive?) — recorded as intent here, nothing filed or drafted. **Driving deadlines
+(clarified 2026-08-29):** #1's provisional will **expire before conversion** (filed ~Dec
+2025, window ~Dec 2026 — priority lost if unconverted; the subject matter can't be re-staked
+by refiling after lapse), so #1 is on a hard clock; **#2 (full StarshipOS) is the December
+deliverable** that keeps the flagship covered — and, pending counsel confirmation, may be the
+conversion vehicle for #1. Authoritative form in `ROADMAP.md` "IP framing of the three
+products".