What We Don't Know
An accountability record honest enough to publish its own open questions — each one held open with dated triggers, not concluded.
Is “American Magic Services” legally BMQRA — and who occupies the premises?
The occupancy/entity axis (Run 06 §9, trigger T3 fired 2026-08-09, split resolution): the lease's use rights run to the Tenant (BMQRA). If AMS — or any SailGP entity — is a distinct legal person occupying or using the premises, Article 18 requires written City consent or a 10-day affiliate notice, and §16.01(c) makes noncompliance a top-tier Event of Default. No consent, notice, or amendment is in the public record; none has yet been requested. The controlling fact (AMS's exact legal form) is shared with Q-04.
Who stands behind the $76M — the Project Maeve America ↔ Birdon lineage?
The binding record names "Project Maeve America, Inc., a Delaware corporation" as the Birdon/#367 contracting entity; the narrative record (the Port's own FY2025 AFR) names "Birdon America Inc." No document connects them and none contains a parent guaranty, so collectability of the proposed $76M clawback depends on an undocumented lineage. Entities deliberately not merged.
Is 115% the standard wage floor across Triumph jobs deals?
The same enforceable wage floor — 115% of county average, against advertised pitch wages of 140–145% — appears in the Birdon draft instruments, and the prior record carries it on the Triumph side of the American Magic deal. One more extracted Triumph jobs contract would show whether 115% is a portfolio-wide default. (v1.2 correction applies: the AM lease itself contains no wage term; the floor is a Triumph-instrument term.)
Does defense-manufacturing revenue flow through the 501(c)(3)?
Whether Saildrone/defense revenue runs inside BMQRA (a private foundation filing 990-PF) or through a not-yet-found taxable entity. Undetermined and plausibly too early — the deal post-dates the latest IRS filing, and a nonprofit may lawfully run unrelated business inside the exempt entity and pay 990-T tax. Not a finding; not an allegation. Shares its controlling fact (AMS legal form) with Q-01.
BMQRA: private foundation (990-PF) or “public charity”?
IRS filings classify BMQRA as a private foundation (990-PF, through Feb-2026); the "American Magic Foundation" page claims a "registered 501(c)(3) public charity." Plausible readings: loose marketing language, or public-support-building via the "250 for 250" campaign toward reclassification (inference, not asserted). Unresolved.
The federal-demand keystones: the order books behind 2,000 jobs and 5 wings/yr
Birdon's 2,000 jobs rest on Coast Guard/Navy shipbuilding volume the Company must win and retain; AMS's "5 wings/yr" implies a Spectre order book no public document shows. Neither Triumph nor the City controls either. First evidence arrived negative on the AMS side: Saildrone lost the Navy MUSV selection (~June 2026) and sued in the Court of Federal Claims — held open; a bid protest can succeed, and wing demand rides on ASW/endurance customers rather than the MUSV variant.
Where does the pending $14M Florida Commerce request sit in Birdon's match?
The application shows a $14M Florida Commerce request; the term sheet's Exhibit B shows a $22.28M City match labeled "EDA + JGGF + other grants." Whether the $14M sits inside that figure is unresolved in the papers (JGGF is a Commerce program).
IHMC #233: the missing metric text and the 3.3× growth
The Fifth Amendment amends Performance Metric #1 and implies a PM#2 whose text is not in our documents — an obligation whose content is unknown. Also open: what drove the grant's 3.3× growth across five amendments, and whether the original ~18-FTE job metrics were achieved before being superseded.
Which “American Magic” entity acquired the ROCKWOOL Racing SailGP team?
Unresolved — and the un-resolvability is the finding (Run 07 §0): across every source the named acquirer is Doug DeVos personally ("sports investor and American Magic Co-Founder"), while ownership/operation is attributed to the brand ("American Magic will own and operate the team"). No source names a legal entity on either side of a $60M+ transaction with named counsel (Miller Johnson) and a named co-investor (IKON Capital). Three candidate readings held open, none adopted: (a) a DeVos-controlled for-profit vehicle under the brand (most plausible — equity co-investment implies a structure a 501(c)(3) would not ordinarily issue); (b) DeVos personally holding title; (c) BMQRA itself (least plausible, most consequential — IRC §4943/§4944 questions would follow). Registered at WO-009 integration: this question predates the questions registry. Shares the Axis-2 fact pattern with Q-01 (premises occupancy) and Q-04 (defense-revenue flow) — common officers (Cazer, Hutchinson) span the "separate entity" boundary.
Canonical: record/questions.yaml — Q-IDs are permanent; questions close
only when the documents that would close them surface. These are questions, never findings;
no motive is imputed to anyone.