diff --git a/AGENTS.md b/AGENTS.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c3cc5c8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/AGENTS.md
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+# Repository agent instructions
+
+This repository contains draft license text and preliminary legal research. It
+does not provide legal advice, and an agent's research is not an adoption or
+licensing decision.
+
+For any request involving license interpretation, enforcement, infringement,
+remedies, litigation, statutes, cases, or legal strategy:
+
+1. Read `paralegal-research/AGENTS.md` completely.
+2. Check `paralegal-research/INDEX.md` before searching the web or opening a
+   new GitHub issue.
+3. Treat a matter memo in that index as the canonical research record. GitHub
+   issues are discussion and action mirrors, not the source of truth.
+4. Keep research separate from changes to `LICENSE`. Do not turn a researched
+   scenario into license text unless the user expressly asks for drafting.
+5. Preserve the attorney-review gate in `LEGAL-REVIEW.md`.
+
+For non-legal work, follow the repository's existing documentation and tests.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 015bf9f..982f294 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ the copyright grant, not contributors' patent grants.
 - `NOTICE-TEMPLATE-MIT-LEGACY.txt` — additive header variant for files
   with surviving MIT-era third-party authorship.
 - `LEGAL-REVIEW.md` — review gate, applied decisions, attorney checklist.
+- `paralegal-research/` — indexed, preliminary legal research, reusable
+  authority notes, research workflow, and future-question backlog.
 - `header-policy.toml` and `header-policy.schema.json` — policy format and
   an integration example.
 - `tools/license_headers.py` — one-command inventory, check, update, and
diff --git a/paralegal-research/AGENTS.md b/paralegal-research/AGENTS.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..52489e5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/AGENTS.md
@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+# Agent workflow for legal research
+
+These instructions apply throughout `paralegal-research/`. Read them before
+doing legal research for this repository.
+
+## 1. Route the question before researching
+
+Normalize the request into five fields:
+
+- **actor** — licensor, copyright owner, contributor, distributor, service
+  operator, customer, or other claimant/defendant;
+- **conduct or trigger** — distribution, remote network use, missed source
+  publication, notice omission, post-termination conduct, or another event;
+- **jurisdiction** — country, court system, and state law when relevant;
+- **issue or remedy** — liability, standing, injunction, damages, cure,
+  specific performance, evidence, or procedure;
+- **time/version** — relevant license version, product release, and date.
+
+Then read `INDEX.md` and search before creating anything. Start with:
+
+```console
+rg -n -i "<key phrase>|<synonym>|<case>|<statute>" paralegal-research LICENSE LEGAL-REVIEW.md README.md
+```
+
+Search synonyms as well as the user's wording. For example, search `source
+disclosure`, `corresponding source`, `specific performance`, `injunction`, and
+`cure` for a request framed as “make the infringer publish.”
+
+## 2. Decide whether the question is already answered
+
+Read the candidate memo's scope, short answer, assumptions, open questions,
+and `last_verified` date. Classify the request as follows:
+
+- `answered` — the memo covers the same material actor, conduct, jurisdiction,
+  remedy, and license version; its authorities remain current; and no open
+  point would materially change the answer.
+- `partial` — the memo is analogous, but a different jurisdiction, claimant,
+  license clause, procedural posture, or unresolved fact matters.
+- `unresearched` — no memo addresses the material question.
+- `superseded` — a newer memo expressly replaces the old one.
+
+Do not create a duplicate memo merely because the phrasing differs. Update the
+existing memo when the legal question is materially the same. Create and
+cross-link a child or related matter when the difference could change the
+answer. A memo may become stale without changing its `research_status`; update
+`last_verified` only after checking all time-sensitive authorities.
+
+Allowed frontmatter values are:
+
+- `research_status`: `unresearched`, `in-progress`, `partial`, `answered`, or
+  `superseded`.
+- `legal_review`: `not-requested`, `pending`, `approved`, or
+  `changes-required`.
+
+## 3. Research in authority order
+
+Prefer sources in this order:
+
+1. Operative repository text and version history.
+2. Statutes, regulations, court opinions, orders, and dockets.
+3. Official license text and materials from the license steward.
+4. Reputable secondary legal analysis for context and leads.
+5. Community posts or anonymous material only as leads to stronger sources.
+
+For technical legal questions, use primary authority for the final proposition
+whenever available. Record the court, jurisdiction, date, procedural posture,
+precedential weight, direct URL, and verification date.
+
+Never collapse these categories:
+
+- a court's holding;
+- a party's allegation or requested relief;
+- a settlement term;
+- a default judgment;
+- dicta or commentary;
+- an inference from multiple sources.
+
+If a complaint asks for source disclosure, that does not prove a judge ordered
+it. If parties settle on publication, that does not establish a generally
+available judicial remedy. State those limits in the memo and authority card.
+
+## 4. File the result
+
+Use `templates/MATTER.md` for a new question and assign the next `PR-####` ID.
+Use `templates/AUTHORITY.md` and the next `AUTH-####` ID when a source is
+nuanced, likely to be reused, or important to the answer. A routine source can
+remain in a matter's source table.
+
+File matters by their primary issue, not by the name of the person asking:
+
+- `matters/remedies/`
+- create another lowercase topic folder only when needed, such as `standing/`,
+  `scope/`, `registration/`, or `procedure/`.
+
+File reusable authority cards by source type:
+
+- `authorities/cases/`
+- `authorities/statutes/`
+- `authorities/licenses/`
+
+Every completed research pass must:
+
+1. update the canonical matter rather than only a chat or issue;
+2. add or update authority cards where warranted;
+3. update `INDEX.md` in the same change;
+4. link related and superseded matters in both directions;
+5. state facts, assumptions, contrary authority, uncertainty, and open
+   questions;
+6. use absolute dates and set `last_verified` to the actual verification date;
+7. distinguish a descriptive conclusion from a recommendation;
+8. leave the license text unchanged unless drafting was expressly requested.
+
+## 5. GitHub and external actions
+
+Repository memos are canonical. If the user asks for an issue, create one with
+a concise summary, scope limits, open questions, and a link to the memo once
+the memo is available. Add the issue URL to the memo. Do not open issues,
+contact counsel, publish findings, or change external systems without user
+authorization.
+
+## 6. Quality gate
+
+Before declaring a matter answered, verify:
+
+- the short answer responds to the normalized question;
+- every important proposition has a direct, accessible source;
+- requested relief is not described as awarded relief;
+- current cases and statutes were checked recently;
+- holdings are separated from settlements and commentary;
+- the memo explains what would change the answer;
+- local links resolve and `git diff --check` passes;
+- legal review is not implied unless `legal_review: approved` is supported by
+  an identified attorney review.
diff --git a/paralegal-research/BACKLOG.md b/paralegal-research/BACKLOG.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7994ea0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/BACKLOG.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# Future research scenarios
+
+These are candidate matters, not active assignments and not conclusions. Before
+starting one, search `INDEX.md`, define the relevant facts and jurisdiction,
+then assign the next matter ID.
+
+| Priority | Scenario | Why it could change a decision | Expected output |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| High | FastLED §11.3 source-publication breach: remedies in the likely defendant forums | The current draft has a commercial-transfer trigger rather than AGPL network interaction, so the cause of action and equitable remedy may differ. | Jurisdiction-specific remedy matrix and pleading assumptions |
+| High | Standing and chain of title | A steward, contributor, copyright owner, customer, and association may have different claims and available remedies. | Claimant-by-claimant standing map and evidence checklist |
+| High | Copyright registration strategy | 17 U.S.C. §412 timing can determine access to statutory damages and attorney's fees. | Release-registration calendar and ownership prerequisites |
+| High | Cure, reinstatement, and past liability | Restoring future permission may not erase damages or exposure for earlier unlicensed acts. | Timeline scenarios for first and repeat violations |
+| Medium | Commercial-license value as damages evidence | A list price, negotiated fee, and reasonable royalty are not automatically interchangeable. | Evidentiary and valuation memo with contrary authority |
+| Medium | Source disclosure as specific performance | Availability may depend on claimant, contract theory, state law, adequacy of damages, and feasibility of supervision. | Jurisdiction comparison and requested-relief drafting notes |
+| Medium | Resellers, contract manufacturers, and exhaustion | Actor and transfer timing can determine who breached and what conduct can be enjoined. | Supply-chain fact patterns and responsibility matrix |
+| Medium | Covered code boundaries | Templates, headers, generated files, firmware, and linked components may produce different source obligations. | Artifact-by-artifact scope analysis |
+| Medium | Cross-border enforcement | Territorial limits, choice of law, service, and judgment enforcement may dominate the practical remedy. | Country-specific issue spotter for actual target markets |
+| Medium | Evidence preservation and pre-suit investigation | Public repository history, shipped binaries, offers, notices, and communications may be necessary to prove timing and scope. | Lawful evidence checklist and preservation protocol for counsel review |
+
+Do not research the entire backlog at once. Promote only the scenario needed for
+a concrete decision, and record any assumptions that substitute for missing
+facts.
diff --git a/paralegal-research/INDEX.md b/paralegal-research/INDEX.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5a0bf01
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/INDEX.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+# Research index
+
+Search this registry before opening a new matter. The matter memo is the
+canonical answer; authority cards are reusable source analyses.
+
+## Matters
+
+| ID | Question | Jurisdiction | Research | Legal review | Verified | Canonical memo |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| PR-0001 | What can a court order for AGPL-style source noncompliance, and can the result be source disclosure or a commercial license? | U.S. federal; California contract issues | answered | pending | 2026-08-25 | [Memo](matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md) |
+
+## Reusable authorities
+
+| ID | Authority | Type | Key use | Verified | Card |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| AUTH-0001 | *Jacobsen v. Katzer* | case | Open-source conditions and copyright enforcement | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md) |
+| AUTH-0002 | *MDY Industries v. Blizzard* | case | Ninth Circuit condition-versus-covenant framework | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md) |
+| AUTH-0003 | *Artifex Software v. Hancom* | case | GPL dual-license pleading and commercial-license damages theory | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md) |
+| AUTH-0004 | BusyBox / Westinghouse | case | Default-judgment injunction for GPL noncompliance | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md) |
+| AUTH-0005 | *Software Freedom Conservancy v. Vizio* | case | Third-party-beneficiary specific-performance theory | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) |
+| AUTH-0006 | 17 U.S.C. §§ 502–505, 412 | statutes | Injunction, impoundment, monetary relief, fees, registration timing | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) |
+| AUTH-0007 | GNU AGPL version 3 | license | Network source offer, termination, cure, and reinstatement | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md) |
+| AUTH-0008 | BusyBox / Monsoon settlement | settlement | Negotiated publication, notice, controls, payment, and reinstatement | 2026-08-25 | [Card](authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md) |
+
+## Status key
+
+- Research: `unresearched`, `in-progress`, `partial`, `answered`, or
+  `superseded`.
+- Legal review: `not-requested`, `pending`, `approved`, or
+  `changes-required`.
+
+The verification date reports when time-sensitive sources were last checked;
+it is not an attorney approval date.
diff --git a/paralegal-research/README.md b/paralegal-research/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c86128f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# Paralegal research library
+
+This directory is the durable home for preliminary legal research supporting
+the FastLED licensing project. It is designed so that a future human or agent
+can answer three questions quickly:
+
+1. Has this question already been researched?
+2. What proposition does the existing authority actually support?
+3. Where should a new finding be recorded so it can be reused?
+
+The material here is research work product for attorney review. It is not legal
+advice, does not establish an attorney-client relationship, and does not itself
+change the project's license or policy. Do not label material privileged or
+confidential unless counsel has directed that treatment.
+
+## Directory map
+
+- `INDEX.md` — canonical registry of matters and reusable authorities.
+- `BACKLOG.md` — scoped future scenarios; an entry is not authorization to
+  begin research.
+- `matters/` — one canonical memo per concrete legal question.
+- `authorities/` — reusable source cards for cases, statutes, and licenses.
+- `templates/` — required structure for new matter memos and authority cards.
+- `AGENTS.md` — mandatory research and filing workflow for agents.
+
+## Mental model
+
+A **matter memo** answers a question. An **authority card** records what a
+source can and cannot establish. The index routes readers to both. A GitHub
+issue may collect discussion, review, or follow-up work, but it should point
+back to the canonical memo rather than becoming the only copy of the research.
+
+Research status and legal-review status are deliberately separate. A memo can
+be complete enough to answer the research question while still awaiting an
+attorney's review.
diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..112c2f6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+id: AUTH-0003
+title: Artifex Software, Inc. v. Hancom, Inc.
+authority_type: case
+jurisdiction: US-Northern-District-of-California
+date: 2017-04-25
+authority_status: settled
+last_verified: 2026-08-25
+related_matter_ids:
+  - PR-0001
+---
+
+# AUTH-0003: *Artifex Software, Inc. v. Hancom, Inc.*
+
+## Citation and source
+
+- *Artifex Software, Inc. v. Hancom, Inc.*, No. 3:16-cv-06982 (N.D. Cal.).
+- [Court order via GovInfo](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06982/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06982-2.pdf)
+- [Free Software Foundation settlement update](https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/update-on-artifex-v-hancom-gnu-gpl-compliance-case-1)
+
+## Procedural posture and weight
+
+Federal trial-court pretrial ruling in a dispute involving GPL-licensed
+Ghostscript and Artifex's alternative commercial license. The case later
+settled. It is persuasive, not binding precedent, and supplies no final merits
+judgment compelling source publication.
+
+## What it supports
+
+- A dual-licensing plaintiff can plausibly pursue contract and copyright
+  theories based on GPL use and alleged noncompliance.
+- The value of an available commercial license may be argued as a measure of
+  damages if supported by the facts and damages law.
+- Use of GPL software does not itself mean the user accepted the separate
+  commercial license.
+
+## What it does not establish
+
+- That a court may force the defendant to buy, or the owner to sell, a
+  commercial license.
+- That the commercial list price automatically equals recoverable damages.
+- That source disclosure was awarded after a merits trial.
+
+## Key facts and reasoning
+
+Artifex offered Ghostscript under the GPL or a paid commercial license and
+alleged that Hancom used and distributed it without satisfying the GPL. The
+court allowed material theories to proceed and rejected the premise that
+Artifex could simply impose a commercial agreement Hancom had not accepted.
+The dispute ended by settlement before a final adjudication of the requested
+source remedy.
+
+## Treatment in this repository
+
+- Related matters: [PR-0001](../../matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md)
+- Recheck trigger: unsealed settlement material, later history, or controlling
+  authority on commercial-license benchmarks.
diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7a82186
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+---
+id: AUTH-0008
+title: BusyBox enforcement settlement with Monsoon Multimedia
+authority_type: settlement
+jurisdiction: US-Southern-District-of-New-York
+date: 2007-10-30
+authority_status: settled
+last_verified: 2026-08-25
+related_matter_ids:
+  - PR-0001
+---
+
+# AUTH-0008: BusyBox enforcement settlement with Monsoon Multimedia
+
+## Citation and source
+
+- *Andersen v. Monsoon Multimedia, Inc.*, No. 07-cv-8205 (S.D.N.Y.).
+- [Software Freedom Law Center settlement announcement](https://softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/oct/30/busybox-monsoon-settlement/)
+
+## Procedural posture and weight
+
+Private settlement announced after a GPL enforcement complaint. Settlement
+terms illustrate negotiated compliance tools but are not findings, holdings,
+or proof that a court would order identical relief after litigation.
+
+## What it supports
+
+- Parties can settle a GPL dispute through source publication, notice to past
+  recipients, compliance controls, payment, and conditional reinstatement of
+  distribution rights.
+- Reinstatement can be negotiated after concrete compliance steps rather than
+  treated as automatic forgiveness of past conduct.
+
+## What it does not establish
+
+- That a court adjudicated liability or ordered those terms.
+- That public source disclosure is mandatory relief in every GPL or AGPL case.
+- That the same terms would be appropriate for network-only use.
+
+## Key facts and reasoning
+
+The announced resolution required Monsoon to publish BusyBox source, notify
+prior recipients, appoint an open-source compliance officer, and pay an
+undisclosed amount. The plaintiffs agreed to reinstate distribution rights after
+compliance. Those are settlement choices made by the parties.
+
+## Treatment in this repository
+
+- Related matters: [PR-0001](../../matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md)
+- Contrasting authority: [BusyBox / Westinghouse](busybox-westinghouse.md),
+  where relief was entered through default judgment.
+- Recheck trigger: use of any term beyond the public announcement or discovery
+  of the operative settlement text.
diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4796da6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+---
+id: AUTH-0004
+title: BusyBox enforcement against Westinghouse
+authority_type: case
+jurisdiction: US-Southern-District-of-New-York
+date: 2010-07-27
+authority_status: default-judgment
+last_verified: 2026-08-25
+related_matter_ids:
+  - PR-0001
+---
+
+# AUTH-0004: BusyBox enforcement against Westinghouse
+
+## Citation and source
+
+- *Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Best Buy Co.*, No. 09-cv-10155
+  (S.D.N.Y.), default judgment as to Westinghouse Digital Electronics.
+- [Software Freedom Conservancy summary and order links](https://sfconservancy.org/news/2010/aug/03/busybox-gpl/)
+
+## Procedural posture and weight
+
+Federal default judgment, not a contested appellate holding. It provides a
+concrete example of relief entered after GPL distribution noncompliance but has
+limited precedential value because Westinghouse defaulted.
+
+## What it supports
+
+- A court can permanently enjoin future distribution of GPL software by a
+  defendant found in default and award monetary and ancillary relief.
+- Continuing unlicensed distribution can be framed as conduct to stop, rather
+  than as a basis to force a new commercial license.
+
+## What it does not establish
+
+- The result after contested merits litigation.
+- A general right to compel publication for network-only AGPL use.
+- That every downstream product or unrelated proprietary component must be
+  disclosed.
+
+## Key facts and reasoning
+
+The plaintiffs alleged distribution of BusyBox in consumer electronics without
+the GPL-required source and notices. After Westinghouse failed to defend, the
+court entered a permanent injunction and monetary/forfeiture-related relief.
+
+## Treatment in this repository
+
+- Related matters: [PR-0001](../../matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md)
+- Recheck trigger: access to the underlying docket/order for any proposition
+  more specific than the Conservancy's linked summary.
diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e9313c0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+---
+id: AUTH-0001
+title: Jacobsen v. Katzer
+authority_type: case
+jurisdiction: US-Federal-Circuit-applying-Ninth-Circuit-law
+date: 2008-08-13
+authority_status: current
+last_verified: 2026-08-25
+related_matter_ids:
+  - PR-0001
+---
+
+# AUTH-0001: *Jacobsen v. Katzer*
+
+## Citation and source
+
+- *Jacobsen v. Katzer*, 535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
+- [Opinion PDF hosted by Berkeley Law](https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Jacobsen_v_Katzer_-_Westlaw.pdf)
+
+## Procedural posture and weight
+
+Published Federal Circuit decision reviewing denial of a preliminary
+injunction and applying Ninth Circuit copyright law. The court vacated and
+remanded. It is significant open-source authority, but it was not a final
+judgment granting source disclosure or damages.
+
+## What it supports
+
+- Express open-source requirements can limit the scope of a copyright license,
+  so conduct outside those conditions may support copyright infringement.
+- Attribution and modification-transparency terms can confer economic benefits
+  even when software is distributed without a traditional royalty.
+
+## What it does not establish
+
+- That every open-source term is a copyright condition.
+- That AGPL §13 has been finally adjudicated under the same analysis.
+- That a court must compel public source disclosure.
+
+## Key facts and reasoning
+
+The Artistic License permitted copying, modification, and distribution subject
+to stated requirements. The appellate court treated the relevant requirements
+as enforceable conditions of permission rather than merely promises detached
+from copyright. The remedy remained subject to the ordinary preliminary-
+injunction analysis on remand.
+
+## Treatment in this repository
+
+- Related matters: [PR-0001](../../matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md)
+- Distinguishing authority: [*MDY Industries*](mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md)
+- Recheck trigger: later controlling Ninth Circuit treatment of open-source
+  conditions or AGPL network-source obligations.
diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..57d9ff9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+---
+id: AUTH-0002
+title: MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
+authority_type: case
+jurisdiction: US-Ninth-Circuit
+date: 2010-12-14
+authority_status: current
+last_verified: 2026-08-25
+related_matter_ids:
+  - PR-0001
+---
+
+# AUTH-0002: *MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.*
+
+## Citation and source
+
+- *MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.*, 629 F.3d 928
+  (9th Cir. 2010), amended on denial of rehearing (2011).
+- [Official Ninth Circuit opinion PDF](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/02/17/09-15932.pdf)
+
+## Procedural posture and weight
+
+Published Ninth Circuit appellate decision. It is binding federal appellate
+authority within that circuit on the condition-versus-covenant framework, but
+it is not an open-source-license case.
+
+## What it supports
+
+- A licensee infringes copyright by exceeding a condition that limits the
+  license's scope when the condition has the required nexus to the licensor's
+  exclusive copyright rights.
+- Breach of an independent contractual covenant ordinarily supports contract,
+  not copyright, remedies.
+
+## What it does not establish
+
+- Whether any particular AGPL or GPL clause is a condition.
+- That a network-source obligation necessarily implicates an exclusive right
+  when the defendant has not distributed a copy.
+- The remedy for open-source noncompliance.
+
+## Key facts and reasoning
+
+The court separated restrictions that define licensed copyright activity from
+promises governing conduct that does not implicate an exclusive right. Future
+analysis must therefore connect the exact license language and defendant's acts
+to the claimed copyright right rather than relying on the label “condition.”
+
+## Treatment in this repository
+
+- Related matters: [PR-0001](../../matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md)
+- Related authority: [*Jacobsen*](jacobsen-v-katzer.md)
+- Recheck trigger: later en banc, Supreme Court, or controlling AGPL-specific
+  treatment.
diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f3447be
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+---
+id: AUTH-0005
+title: Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Vizio, Inc.
+authority_type: case
+jurisdiction: California-state-court
+date: 2021-10-19
+authority_status: pending
+last_verified: 2026-08-25
+related_matter_ids:
+  - PR-0001
+---
+
+# AUTH-0005: *Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Vizio, Inc.*
+
+## Citation and source
+
+- *Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Vizio, Inc.*, filed in Orange County
+  Superior Court; federal removal/remand proceedings included No.
+  8:21-cv-01943 (C.D. Cal.).
+- [Conservancy case page and current procedural updates](https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html)
+
+## Procedural posture and weight
+
+Ongoing litigation asserting California contract rights as a third-party
+beneficiary of GPL obligations and seeking source-code performance. Procedural
+rulings allowing litigation to continue are not a final holding that the
+plaintiff is entitled to source or specific performance.
+
+## What it supports
+
+- A downstream recipient may plead a state-contract beneficiary theory seeking
+  source code, distinct from a copyright owner's infringement suit.
+- Source delivery can be requested as specific performance rather than only as
+  damages.
+
+## What it does not establish
+
+- That the plaintiff will prevail on standing, liability, or remedy.
+- That all recipients under GPL-family licenses may compel source in every
+  jurisdiction.
+- A final judicial award of public source disclosure.
+
+## Key facts and reasoning
+
+The Conservancy alleges that Vizio distributed products containing GPL-covered
+software without providing corresponding source and seeks performance of the
+source obligations as a beneficiary. The matter illustrates a claimant and
+remedy theory that differs from direct copyright-owner enforcement.
+
+## Treatment in this repository
+
+- Related matters: [PR-0001](../../matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md)
+- Recheck trigger: any merits, trial, appellate, settlement, or dismissal
+  development. Because the case is pending, verify status before every use.
diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9f35771
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+---
+id: AUTH-0007
+title: GNU Affero General Public License version 3
+authority_type: license
+jurisdiction: not-applicable
+date: 2007-11-19
+authority_status: current-version-3
+last_verified: 2026-08-25
+related_matter_ids:
+  - PR-0001
+---
+
+# AUTH-0007: GNU Affero General Public License version 3
+
+## Citation and source
+
+- [Official GNU AGPL version 3 text](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html)
+
+## Procedural posture and weight
+
+Primary license text published by the Free Software Foundation. It states the
+permission and obligations but is not legislation or a judicial interpretation
+of those terms.
+
+## What it supports
+
+- Section 13 requires a modified program used for remote network interaction to
+  offer users an opportunity to receive corresponding source through a stated
+  network mechanism.
+- Section 8 addresses automatic termination and describes provisional and
+  permanent reinstatement mechanisms, including cure-related timing.
+- Separate permission can exist outside the AGPL if the relevant copyright
+  holder grants it.
+
+## What it does not establish
+
+- Which claimant can sue under a given set of facts.
+- Whether a particular obligation is a copyright condition or contract
+  covenant under the governing law.
+- Which equitable remedy a court will award.
+- That cure eliminates liability for earlier unlicensed conduct.
+
+## Key facts and reasoning
+
+For remedy analysis, map the exact alleged act to the license text. Distribution
+obligations and §13's network-interaction obligation can present different
+copyright and contract theories. Section 8 must be read separately for future
+reinstatement and any claim concerning past conduct.
+
+## Treatment in this repository
+
+- Related matters: [PR-0001](../../matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md)
+- Recheck trigger: a new AGPL version, official erratum, or controlling judicial
+  interpretation.
diff --git a/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b22311e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+id: AUTH-0006
+title: U.S. Copyright Act remedies and registration timing
+authority_type: statute
+jurisdiction: US-federal
+date: 1976-10-19
+authority_status: current
+last_verified: 2026-08-25
+related_matter_ids:
+  - PR-0001
+---
+
+# AUTH-0006: U.S. Copyright Act remedies and registration timing
+
+## Citation and source
+
+- [17 U.S.C. §502 — injunctions](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/502)
+- [17 U.S.C. §503 — impoundment and disposition](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/503)
+- [17 U.S.C. §504 — damages and profits](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504)
+- [17 U.S.C. §505 — costs and attorney's fees](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505)
+- [17 U.S.C. §412 — registration prerequisite for certain remedies](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/412)
+
+## Procedural posture and weight
+
+Federal statutes. The linked Legal Information Institute pages reproduce the
+U.S. Code and link source notes. Always check for amendments and controlling
+case law governing equitable factors and calculation.
+
+## What it supports
+
+- Courts may grant injunctions on terms they deem reasonable to prevent or
+  restrain copyright infringement.
+- Courts may order impoundment and disposition of infringing copies and
+  relevant articles within statutory limits.
+- A successful claimant may elect actual damages plus qualifying infringer's
+  profits or statutory damages, subject to the statute.
+- Courts may award costs and reasonable attorney's fees in their discretion.
+- Section 412 can preclude statutory damages and fees based on registration
+  timing.
+
+## What it does not establish
+
+- That an injunction is automatic after a finding of infringement.
+- That every license breach is copyright infringement.
+- A right to compel acceptance of a commercial license.
+- The availability or elements of state-law specific performance.
+
+## Key facts and reasoning
+
+These provisions define the ordinary federal copyright remedy categories. They
+must be paired with proof of standing, infringement, causation, registration
+facts, and the equitable standards developed in controlling cases.
+
+## Treatment in this repository
+
+- Related matters: [PR-0001](../../matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md)
+- Recheck trigger: statutory amendment, Supreme Court remedial decision, or a
+  matter involving a registration timeline not already analyzed.
diff --git a/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md b/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..31e26b2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/matters/remedies/agpl-noncompliance-judicial-remedies.md
@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
+---
+id: PR-0001
+title: Judicial remedies for AGPL-style source noncompliance
+question: "For an infringer that has not complied with an AGPL code base, what can a U.S. court ordinarily order, and can the remedy be source disclosure or acquisition of a commercial license?"
+short_answer: "A court can ordinarily stop continued unlicensed copying, distribution, or other acts within the copyright owner's exclusive rights and may award authorized monetary and ancillary relief. Source disclosure or performance of a source obligation may be requested under a contract theory, but it is not an automatic or well-established final remedy in U.S. AGPL litigation. A judge generally cannot force parties into a new commercial license; a license can be voluntarily obtained, and its value may sometimes inform damages."
+research_status: answered
+legal_review: pending
+jurisdictions:
+  - US-federal
+  - California
+topics:
+  - AGPL
+  - remedies
+  - injunction
+  - source-disclosure
+  - commercial-license
+last_verified: 2026-08-25
+github_issues:
+  - https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/15
+related_matter_ids: []
+supersedes: []
+---
+
+# PR-0001: Judicial remedies for AGPL-style source noncompliance
+
+> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a decision
+> to adopt the AGPL, GPL, or any other license.
+
+## Scope and assumptions
+
+This memo answers a hypothetical enforcement question under U.S. federal
+copyright law, with California contract principles relevant to the principal
+reported GPL cases. It assumes the claimant owns or exclusively controls the
+copyrights needed to sue and can prove that the defendant engaged in conduct
+requiring permission. It does not decide whether FastLED should adopt AGPL or
+whether the current [draft license](../../../LICENSE) produces the same claims.
+
+The key distinction is between:
+
+- an injunction that says **stop conduct unless it is licensed**;
+- an affirmative order to **perform the source-disclosure promise**; and
+- an order that purports to **create a new paid license** between unwilling
+  parties.
+
+Those are not interchangeable remedies.
+
+## Short answer
+
+The conventional copyright remedy is an injunction against continued
+unlicensed exercise of copyright rights, supported where proven by impoundment
+or destruction, actual damages and infringer's profits, or statutory damages
+and attorney's fees when registration and other statutory requirements are met.
+A compliant license path may make the injunction read functionally as “stop
+unless you comply or obtain separate permission,” but the court is prohibiting
+unlicensed conduct rather than choosing a business model for the defendant.
+
+An order requiring publication or delivery of corresponding source is legally
+plausible under a contract/specific-performance theory and has appeared in
+requests and settlements. The reviewed U.S. authorities do not establish a
+routine final AGPL judgment compelling public release. That relief depends on
+standing, the governing law, the exact promise, adequacy of damages, and normal
+equitable limits.
+
+A court generally cannot impose a commercial license that the copyright owner
+never agreed to grant. The parties can settle on a commercial license or enter
+a consent judgment. In a damages case, evidence of the owner's commercial
+license price may be relevant, but it is a valuation theory—not compelled
+acceptance of that license.
+
+## Remedy matrix
+
+| Remedy | What a judge could do | Important limit |
+|---|---|---|
+| Prohibitory injunction | Stop unlicensed copying, modification, distribution, or other proven acts; condition future conduct on having valid permission | Requires ownership/standing, infringement, and equitable factors; network operation alone must implicate the applicable right or claim |
+| Source-code performance | Order a defendant to deliver or publish source if a valid contract claim and specific-performance requirements are established | U.S. AGPL precedent reviewed here does not show this as an automatic or routine final award |
+| Actual damages and profits | Compensate proven loss and recover qualifying profits not already included | Causation, apportionment, and non-duplication matter; a commercial fee is evidence, not an imposed contract |
+| Statutory damages and fees | Award the relief authorized by 17 U.S.C. §§504–505 | Registration timing under §412 can bar statutory damages and fees for some infringements |
+| Impoundment or destruction | Control infringing copies and relevant articles under 17 U.S.C. §503 | Scope and proportionality depend on the articles and proven infringement |
+| Declaratory relief | Declare rights, termination, breach, or noncompliance where a justiciable controversy exists | A declaration does not by itself publish source or create a license |
+| Contempt/enforcement | Enforce an injunction or consent decree after entry | Applies only to the actual terms and persons bound by the order |
+
+## Role-play scenarios
+
+### 1. Copyright owner proves unlicensed distribution
+
+The owner asks the court to enjoin further distribution. A conventional order
+would bar distribution unless the defendant has permission. The defendant can
+then stop, comply with an available license path if the license permits cure and
+reinstatement, or negotiate a commercial license. The order need not force the
+owner to offer commercial terms.
+
+### 2. Service operator violates AGPL §13 but distributes no copy
+
+The claimant asks for a source offer to remote users. The factual and doctrinal
+questions become sharper: the claimant must identify an enforceable claim and
+show why affirmative performance is available. The language of AGPL §13 is
+clear as a license obligation, but this research did not identify a final U.S.
+AGPL merits judgment establishing the precise remedy for network-only
+noncompliance.
+
+### 3. Claimant asks for “publish the code or buy a license”
+
+That can be a settlement proposal. It can also describe the defendant's
+practical choices after an injunction against unlicensed conduct. It should not
+be pleaded or described as though a judge can compel an unaccepted commercial
+contract. *Artifex v. Hancom* supports potential use of commercial-license value
+as a damages measure while expressly resisting the idea that the license was
+automatically imposed.
+
+### 4. Downstream user seeks source rather than the copyright owner suing
+
+The theory may be third-party-beneficiary contract enforcement and specific
+performance, as in the pending *SFC v. Vizio* litigation, rather than copyright
+infringement. Standing, state contract law, federal preemption, and the requested
+form of performance all require separate analysis. The existence of that case
+does not yet establish a final right to compelled source production.
+
+### 5. Defendant cures after notice
+
+AGPL §8 contains termination and reinstatement rules, including specified cure
+mechanisms. Reinstatement of permission going forward does not necessarily
+erase claims or remedies for earlier unlicensed acts. The text, notice history,
+whether this is a first violation, and the timing of cure must be mapped before
+stating the result.
+
+## Analysis
+
+### Copyright remedies focus on stopping infringement and compensating harm
+
+Sections 502–505 of the Copyright Act authorize injunctions, impoundment and
+disposition, damages and profits or statutory damages, costs, and discretionary
+attorney's fees. Section 412 makes registration timing important to statutory
+damages and fee recovery. These provisions do not create a general power to
+write a new commercial license for the parties.
+
+### License conditions can support copyright claims, but wording matters
+
+*Jacobsen v. Katzer* recognizes that open-source restrictions tied to the scope
+of permission can be copyright conditions rather than only contractual
+promises. *MDY Industries v. Blizzard* supplies the Ninth Circuit framework:
+breach of a condition that limits the license's scope and has a copyright nexus
+can sound in copyright, while breach of an independent covenant generally
+sounds in contract. Application to a particular AGPL obligation still depends
+on the text and conduct.
+
+### Reported GPL disputes do not establish an automatic forced-license remedy
+
+In *Artifex v. Hancom*, a federal trial court allowed contract and copyright
+theories concerning GPL-licensed Ghostscript to proceed. It treated the value
+of Artifex's commercial license as a possible damages measure but did not deem
+Hancom to have accepted or been forced into that commercial license. The case
+later settled, so it did not yield a final merits judgment ordering public
+source disclosure.
+
+The BusyBox/Westinghouse default judgment demonstrates that a federal court can
+permanently enjoin future distribution after GPL noncompliance and award
+monetary and ancillary relief. Because it was a default judgment involving
+distribution, its precedential and factual reach is limited.
+
+Settlements such as BusyBox/Monsoon have required source publication,
+recipient notice, compliance controls, payment, and conditional reinstatement.
+Those terms show practical negotiated remedies, not what every judge must order.
+
+*SFC v. Vizio* tests a beneficiary's state-contract claim for source code and
+specific performance. Its procedural survival is important, but no final
+merits decision identified as of the verification date establishes that the
+requested source remedy will be awarded.
+
+## Authorities
+
+| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits |
+|---|---|---|
+| [17 U.S.C. remedies](../../authorities/statutes/us-copyright-remedies.md) | Statutory menu of copyright relief and registration constraints | Does not decide contract remedies or AGPL-specific liability |
+| [GNU AGPLv3](../../authorities/licenses/gnu-agpl-v3.md) | §13 network source offer; §8 termination, cure, and reinstatement | License text, not a judicial ruling |
+| [*Jacobsen v. Katzer*](../../authorities/cases/jacobsen-v-katzer.md) | Open-source terms may be enforceable copyright conditions | Preliminary-injunction appeal; no final source-disclosure remedy |
+| [*MDY Industries v. Blizzard*](../../authorities/cases/mdy-industries-v-blizzard.md) | Ninth Circuit condition/covenant and copyright-nexus framework | Not an open-source case |
+| [*Artifex v. Hancom*](../../authorities/cases/artifex-v-hancom.md) | GPL contract/copyright claims; commercial-license damages theory | Trial-level pretrial ruling; later settlement |
+| [BusyBox / Westinghouse](../../authorities/cases/busybox-westinghouse.md) | Permanent injunction after GPL distribution noncompliance | Default judgment; limited precedential value |
+| [BusyBox / Monsoon](../../authorities/cases/busybox-monsoon-settlement.md) | Publication, notice, controls, payment, and conditional reinstatement | Private settlement; not an adjudicated remedy rule |
+| [*SFC v. Vizio*](../../authorities/cases/sfc-v-vizio.md) | Beneficiary contract/specific-performance theory can proceed procedurally | Pending; no final merits/source-production award identified |
+
+## What would change the answer
+
+- The forum and governing state contract law.
+- Whether the defendant distributed copies or only provided network access.
+- The claimant's copyright ownership, exclusive rights, or beneficiary status.
+- Exact AGPL version and source-obligation facts.
+- Registration and infringement dates.
+- Evidence that money is inadequate and affirmative relief is feasible.
+- A later final decision in *SFC v. Vizio* or another AGPL merits case.
+
+## Open questions for counsel
+
+- Under the anticipated forum's law, should source publication be pleaded as
+  specific performance, injunctive relief, or both?
+- For network-only AGPL §13 conduct, what exclusive copyright right and what
+  contract formation facts support each claimant's theory?
+- What ownership and registration record exists for each relevant release?
+- Would a commercial-license price be admissible and sufficiently comparable
+  to prove actual damages on the assumed facts?
+- How should requested relief preserve an option to negotiate without implying
+  that the court may compel either party to license?
+
+## Repository implications
+
+This research does not support changing the repository to AGPL and does not
+resolve the remedy language appropriate for the FastLED Reciprocal License. A
+separate, counsel-reviewed matter should analyze the current draft's §11.3
+commercial-transfer obligation in likely enforcement forums. That scenario is
+listed in the [backlog](../../BACKLOG.md).
+
+Discussion and follow-up are tracked in [GitHub issue #15](https://github.com/FastLED/license/issues/15).
+
+## History
+
+| Date | Change | Author/reviewer |
+|---|---|---|
+| 2026-08-25 | Initial research captured from issue #15 | Agent; attorney review pending |
diff --git a/paralegal-research/templates/AUTHORITY.md b/paralegal-research/templates/AUTHORITY.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d9eba28
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/templates/AUTHORITY.md
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+id: AUTH-####
+title: Authority name
+authority_type: case
+jurisdiction: Jurisdiction
+date: YYYY-MM-DD
+authority_status: current
+last_verified: YYYY-MM-DD
+related_matter_ids: []
+---
+
+# AUTH-####: Authority name
+
+## Citation and source
+
+- Full citation or identifier:
+- Direct primary source:
+- Later history or current status:
+
+## Procedural posture and weight
+
+State whether this is a reported appellate holding, interlocutory order,
+default judgment, pending matter, settlement, statute, license text, or
+secondary commentary. Explain whether and where it binds.
+
+## What it supports
+
+- Proposition supported by the authority.
+
+## What it does not establish
+
+- Requested relief, unresolved issue, jurisdictional limit, or inference that
+  should not be presented as a holding.
+
+## Key facts and reasoning
+
+Paraphrase the minimum facts and reasoning needed for future reuse. Avoid long
+quotations.
+
+## Treatment in this repository
+
+- Related matters:
+- Conflicting or distinguishing authorities:
+- Recheck trigger:
diff --git a/paralegal-research/templates/MATTER.md b/paralegal-research/templates/MATTER.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4249067
--- /dev/null
+++ b/paralegal-research/templates/MATTER.md
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+---
+id: PR-####
+title: Concise matter title
+question: "One concrete legal question"
+short_answer: "One-paragraph result with the principal qualification"
+research_status: unresearched
+legal_review: not-requested
+jurisdictions:
+  - jurisdiction
+topics:
+  - topic
+last_verified: YYYY-MM-DD
+github_issues: []
+related_matter_ids: []
+supersedes: []
+---
+
+# PR-####: Concise matter title
+
+> Preliminary research for attorney review. Not legal advice and not a license
+> or policy decision.
+
+## Scope and assumptions
+
+Identify the actor, conduct or trigger, jurisdiction, remedy, license version,
+relevant dates, assumed facts, and questions deliberately excluded.
+
+## Short answer
+
+Answer the normalized question first. Separate what is likely, possible,
+uncertain, and unavailable.
+
+## Analysis
+
+For each proposition, explain the rule, apply it to the assumed facts, cite the
+best authority, and state any contrary rule or important limitation.
+
+## Scenario matrix
+
+| Scenario | Likely claim | Relief a court could consider | Main uncertainty |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| | | | |
+
+## Authorities
+
+| Authority | Proposition supported | Posture and limits |
+|---|---|---|
+| | | |
+
+Link reusable authority cards. Use direct primary-source links for central
+propositions.
+
+## What would change the answer
+
+- Missing fact, jurisdiction change, new decision, or license-text difference.
+
+## Open questions for counsel
+
+- Question requiring legal judgment or fact development.
+
+## Repository implications
+
+State whether the research suggests a separate drafting or policy decision.
+Research alone must not modify `LICENSE`.
+
+## History
+
+| Date | Change | Author/reviewer |
+|---|---|---|
+| YYYY-MM-DD | Initial research | Agent; attorney review pending |