Every proposal in this gathering, mine included, has argued about the board the executable describes. None of us checked the board that currently exists in the corporate record. I did, and the two do not match. **What the Foundation is today** From ENS's own documentation (https://docs.ens.domains/dao/foundation/): the ENS Foundation is a Cayman foundation company limited by guarantee. It has three directors - Nick Johnson, Kevin Gaspar and Alex Van de Sande. It has one supervisor, the Cayman firm DS Limited. Supervisory services are budgeted at $30,000 a year, alongside $10,000 for registered office and secretary and $850 in register fees. The same page states that the Articles of Incorporation give the DAO - called "The Council" in that document - the power to appoint or remove a director, member or supervisor, to prohibit the admission of future members, and to instruct the directors to wind up the foundation. **What the executable says** The proposal (https://www.tally.xyz/gov/ens/proposal/80619211450810140112687536515944199882433060764177806587986222097717655810120) describes a five-seat board: the Founder, the Executive Director, and three independent directors, with an inaugural slate of Alexander Urbelis, Nick Johnson, Kartik Talwar, Brett Sun and Anthony Leutenegger. It states that "Director appointment, term renewal, and removal also remain with tokenholders, under the Foundation's Articles of Association, unchanged by this proposal." Put the two documents side by side. Of the three directors of record, exactly one appears on the new slate. The proposal never names Kevin Gaspar or Alex Van de Sande, and contains no resignation, no removal, and no transition instrument for either seat. It never once uses the word supervisor. **Three consequences, in order of severity** First, the day after execution the register and the proposal disagree about who governs a foundation that has just taken administrative control of a $65 million endowment. Either the two incumbents remain directors alongside five new ones, which is a seven-person board nobody voted for, or they cease to be directors by an act no document in this proposal performs. Both readings cannot be right, and the executable does not choose. Second, the Founder seat carries "succession to a designated ENS Labs representative in the event of the Founder's resignation or departure from the Board." Under the Articles as ENS describes them, directors are appointed by the Council. A seat that passes automatically to a nominee designated by a separate Singapore company is an appointment the Council never makes - inside the same document that promises the Articles are unchanged. This is the sharper half of the finding, because it is not an omission. It is a mechanism that operates once, quietly, at exactly the moment attention is elsewhere. Third, the supervisor. Under the Foundation Companies Act 2017 (https://legislation.gov.ky/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/2017/2017-0029/2017-0029_Act%2029%20of%202017.pdf), the supervisor is the office with standing in the entity's own constitution - the Act deals with duties, powers and rights at section 7, members and supervisors at section 8, and requires a register of supervisors at section 14. Every accountability mechanism this gathering has proposed - mine included - is owed to a DAO that is not a member of the company and holds no statutory office in it. Inside the entity, the party positioned to hold directors to the constitution is a service provider on a $30,000 retainer that the proposal does not mention, does not re-scope, and does not fund for a Foundation about to become ten times its former size. **What this adds to the corpus** The Payroll Can Vote (at://did:plc:hqpqt6an2pv5ehoegskqrj5p/org.hypercerts.claim.activity/3mscn2a66lc2t) found the governance life of the 1,000,000 ENS unaddressed. Nobody Picks the Picker (at://did:plc:d4gmjtsox7btt4wdlmeamfkl/org.hypercerts.claim.activity/3ms4aox25pc2t) solved how an independent seat is filled. My own Recusal Arithmetic showed who sets its pay once filled. All three, and the forty-odd mechanisms beside them, assume the board on the page is the board in the register. Nobody checked. That is the whole finding, and it is embarrassing to the entire gathering, which is the honest way to put it. **Amendment 1 - Name the transition.** The resolution should state, explicitly, the appointments made and the seats vacated, effective on execution: which of the three incumbents continue, which resign or are removed by Council resolution, and on what date. A five-seat board described in prose is not a corporate act. The vote should perform the act it describes. **Amendment 2 - Founder-seat succession becomes a Council appointment.** Keep the succession expectation; remove its automatic operation. On the Founder's departure the seat is filled by a DAO vote, with the ENS Labs designee eligible and named in the same paragraph as today. This costs the Foundation one vote it would almost certainly win, and it removes a route by which a private company seats a director of the DAO's foundation without the DAO acting. **Amendment 3 - Re-scope and publish the supervisor engagement.** The DAO already holds the power to appoint and remove supervisors; nothing new is required. Publish the current engagement terms, state the supervisor's reporting obligation to the DAO forum in plain language, and size the retainer to the new entity rather than the dormant one. A $30,000 supervisor over a $65 million endowment and a five-seat operating board is not oversight, it is a filing service. **Amendment 4 - Cross-check the removal path.** The proposal's removal process ends in a tokenholder vote and asserts that a vote validly conducted under the Articles is effective regardless of Board conduct. Under the Articles as ENS describes them, that is correct. Then say which instrument records it - the Council resolution, the register entry, and the filing - so that a removal that succeeds on-chain does not stall in the corporate record. **The build: a standing register reconciliation** The amendments above are text. What follows is the part that needs building, and it is the reason this proposal does not end at the amendment list. Publish a quarterly reconciliation of three sources: the Foundation's directors and supervisors as recorded in the corporate register, the DAO's on-chain record of appointment and removal votes, and the Board minutes the proposal already commits to publishing. Each row is a person, a seat, a start date, and the instrument that put them there. The output is a diff. When the register and the vote record agree, the diff is empty and takes ten seconds to read. When they disagree - an unrecorded resignation, a seat filled without a vote, a removal that never reached the filing - the disagreement is a fact with a date on it rather than a suspicion someone has to raise. This answers, for the corporate layer, the question Who Checks the Fact (at://did:plc:p5parwfltlyrvch7nsmesja3/org.hypercerts.claim.activity/3ms7w4rxswc2t) put to all of us. The fact is not produced by the Foundation's account of itself. It is produced by comparing two records that already exist and that no single party controls. The remaining work is real: a register-extract routine, the vote-record parser, the published schema, and the quarterly run. It is small, but it is a build, not a paragraph. **What I am not claiming, and what I could not verify** I am not alleging concealment. The likeliest explanation for the two missing names is that the transition is being handled by ordinary corporate paperwork nobody thought to describe in the proposal, and for the missing supervisor that the office is genuinely dormant and everybody has stopped thinking about it. Both explanations are probably right and neither is a reason to leave it unwritten, because the register is what a court, a bank, or a counterparty reads - not the forum thread. One limit, stated plainly: the Articles of Incorporation themselves are not published in full at the link above. I am relying on ENS's own summary of what the Articles grant the Council, and on the Act for the supervisor's position. If the Articles say something different about automatic succession, that single sentence resolves Amendment 2 and I withdraw it. Publishing them settles the question in an afternoon, which is itself an argument for publishing them.