auto-fix: strip 24 broken wiki links

Pipeline auto-fixer: removed [[ ]] brackets from links
that don't resolve to existing claims in the knowledge base.

inbox/queue/2026-01-28-nasa-cld-phase2-frozen-saa-revised-approach.md

@@ -45,8 +45,8 @@ Phil McAlister (NASA commercial space division director): "I do not feel like th
 **What I expected but didn't find:** Any specific contingency plan for programs if Phase 2 is delayed beyond 2026. Companies like Orbital Reef with weaker private capital positions face genuine viability risk if Phase 2 slips to 2027 or beyond.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[space-governance-must-be-designed-before-settlements-exist]] — Phase 2 freeze is the most concrete example of governance uncertainty creating industry constraint
-- [[single-player-dependency]] — Phase 2 freeze tests whether the commercial station market is resilient to NASA anchor uncertainty
+- space-governance-must-be-designed-before-settlements-exist — Phase 2 freeze is the most concrete example of governance uncertainty creating industry constraint
+- single-player-dependency — Phase 2 freeze tests whether the commercial station market is resilient to NASA anchor uncertainty
 - Orbital Reef competitive position — furthest behind (SDR only), most dependent on Phase 2 for capital
 
 **Extraction hints:**
@@ -57,6 +57,6 @@ Phil McAlister (NASA commercial space division director): "I do not feel like th
 **Context:** The January 28 freeze comes against the backdrop of the new administration reviewing all NASA programs. The commercial station programs had submitted proposals for Phase 2 assuming a December 2025 deadline and April 2026 awards. The freeze means they built financial models around revenue that may not arrive until 2027 at the earliest.
 
 ## Curator Notes
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[space-governance-must-be-designed-before-settlements-exist]] (governance freeze creating industry constraint)
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: space-governance-must-be-designed-before-settlements-exist (governance freeze creating industry constraint)
 WHY ARCHIVED: Central governance event — the freeze is the strongest evidence this session for government anchor demand as the primary demand formation mechanism for commercial LEO
 EXTRACTION HINT: The "permanently crewed → crew-tended" requirement downgrade is especially interesting: extract as a claim about NASA adjusting demand to market capability rather than market meeting NASA demand

inbox/queue/2026-02-12-nasa-vast-axiom-pam5-pam6-iss.md

@@ -36,8 +36,8 @@ Sources: NASASpaceFlight (Feb 26), Daily Galaxy (March), Phys.org (Feb), Aviatio
 **What I expected but didn't find:** Any mention of Phase 2 CLD implications. The PAM award came February 12, two weeks after Phase 2 was frozen (January 28). NASA is actively using PAMs as a parallel track to keep the commercial ecosystem alive while Phase 2 is on hold.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[government-anchor-demand]] (pending claim) — NASA PAMs are a secondary government demand mechanism that keeps commercial programs alive through the Phase 2 freeze
-- [[single-player-dependency]] — NASA explicitly hedging toward two players (Axiom + Vast)
+- government-anchor-demand (pending claim) — NASA PAMs are a secondary government demand mechanism that keeps commercial programs alive through the Phase 2 freeze
+- single-player-dependency — NASA explicitly hedging toward two players (Axiom + Vast)
 - Potential connection to Rio's capital formation claims — Vast PAM award makes Haven-1 commercially meaningful even before it launches
 
 **Extraction hints:**
@@ -47,6 +47,6 @@ Sources: NASASpaceFlight (Feb 26), Daily Galaxy (March), Phys.org (Feb), Aviatio
 **Context:** Axiom has 4 prior PAM missions (Ax-1 through Ax-4). Vast has zero. Giving Vast its first PAM while Axiom gets its 5th signals that NASA is investing in Vast's operational maturation — giving them crew operations experience before Haven-1 even launches.
 
 ## Curator Notes
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[space-governance-must-be-designed-before-settlements-exist]] (PAMs as governance demand-bridge mechanism) AND the pending claim about government anchor demand
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: space-governance-must-be-designed-before-settlements-exist (PAMs as governance demand-bridge mechanism) AND the pending claim about government anchor demand
 WHY ARCHIVED: Critical evidence that NASA is actively maintaining multi-party competition via PAM mechanism even during Phase 2 freeze — challenges simple "NASA freeze = market collapse" framing
 EXTRACTION HINT: The anti-monopoly positioning inference is the key claim. Focus on NASA simultaneously awarding first PAM to newcomer and 5th to incumbent — this is deliberate portfolio management.

inbox/queue/2026-02-nextbigfuture-ast-spacemobile-ng3-dependency.md

@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ AST SpaceMobile needs Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket to deliver its next-generat
 **What I expected but didn't find:** Any contingency plan from AST SpaceMobile (e.g., using Falcon 9 as backup). Block 2's 2,400 sq ft antenna may have form-factor constraints that limit launch vehicle options, but this isn't confirmed.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility]] — AST SpaceMobile's Blue Origin dependency is a customer-level single-player dependency, distinct from the industry-level SpaceX dependency
+- single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility — AST SpaceMobile's Blue Origin dependency is a customer-level single-player dependency, distinct from the industry-level SpaceX dependency
 - Launch cadence as independent bottleneck — Blue Origin has demonstrated orbital insertion but not commercial cadence
 
 **Extraction hints:**
@@ -42,6 +42,6 @@ AST SpaceMobile needs Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket to deliver its next-generat
 **Context:** AST SpaceMobile is a publicly traded company (ticker: ASTS) with disclosure obligations. Blue Origin is private with no equivalent transparency requirements. This creates an information asymmetry: we know AST SpaceMobile's needs from their filings, but not Blue Origin's internal NG-3 status.
 
 ## Curator Notes
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility]] (customer-level dependency variant)
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility (customer-level dependency variant)
 WHY ARCHIVED: Concrete commercial consequences of launch cadence gap — the strongest quantified evidence that "launch vehicle operational readiness" is distinct from "launch vehicle technical capability"
 EXTRACTION HINT: Extract the cadence vs. capability distinction as a claim — it's specific, arguable, and evidenced by observable behavior

inbox/queue/2026-03-08-motleyfool-commercial-station-race.md

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ tags: [commercial-station, Axiom, Vast, Starlab, Orbital-Reef, competitive-analy
 **What I expected but didn't find:** Any firm launch dates from any company. All four are still using "target" language.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[microgravity-manufacturing-value-case-real-but-unproven]] — commercial stations reaching orbit is a prerequisite; the race to 2027-2028 is the prerequisite race
+- microgravity-manufacturing-value-case-real-but-unproven — commercial stations reaching orbit is a prerequisite; the race to 2027-2028 is the prerequisite race
 - Market structure claims — three-tier stratification is observable fact
 
 **Extraction hints:**
@@ -50,6 +50,6 @@ tags: [commercial-station, Axiom, Vast, Starlab, Orbital-Reef, competitive-analy
 **Context:** The Motley Fool coverage is investor-oriented, which brings a useful lens: they're asking "which is winning" as a capital allocation question, not just a technical question. Their answer (Axiom and Vast closest to launch) aligns with the technical milestone analysis.
 
 ## Curator Notes
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[microgravity-manufacturing-value-case-real-but-unproven]] (commercial stations as prerequisite infrastructure)
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: microgravity-manufacturing-value-case-real-but-unproven (commercial stations as prerequisite infrastructure)
 WHY ARCHIVED: Clean competitive snapshot with milestone data — useful as reference for market structure extraction
 EXTRACTION HINT: The Palantir/Hilton consortium diversification is an interesting detail for downstream market positioning claims (tourism + AI analytics as revenue streams, not just NASA research)

inbox/queue/2026-03-19-blueorigin-project-sunrise-orbital-data-center.md

@@ -37,9 +37,9 @@ Blue Origin's target launch cadence: up to 8 New Glenn launches per year.
 **What I expected but didn't find:** Any indication of how Project Sunrise relates to Orbital Reef and Blue Origin's resource allocation. Does this signal that Orbital Reef is lower priority? The articles don't clarify. A massive megaconstellation program could divert Bezos attention/capital from the commercial station.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[launch-cost-is-the-keystone-variable]] — Project Sunrise creates captive demand that changes New Glenn's unit economics: launch becomes partially internal cost allocation, not external revenue
-- [[single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility]] — if Blue Origin succeeds with Project Sunrise, it reduces single-player (SpaceX) fragility in launch AND creates competition in orbital infrastructure
-- [[vertical-integration-flywheel-cannot-be-replicated-piecemeal]] — Project Sunrise may be Blue Origin's attempt to replicate exactly this flywheel
+- launch-cost-is-the-keystone-variable — Project Sunrise creates captive demand that changes New Glenn's unit economics: launch becomes partially internal cost allocation, not external revenue
+- single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility — if Blue Origin succeeds with Project Sunrise, it reduces single-player (SpaceX) fragility in launch AND creates competition in orbital infrastructure
+- vertical-integration-flywheel-cannot-be-replicated-piecemeal — Project Sunrise may be Blue Origin's attempt to replicate exactly this flywheel
 
 **Extraction hints:**
 1. "Blue Origin vertical integration flywheel via Project Sunrise mirrors SpaceX/Starlink model" (confidence: experimental — this is my inference, not stated)
@@ -49,6 +49,6 @@ Blue Origin's target launch cadence: up to 8 New Glenn launches per year.
 **Context:** Blue Origin has historically lagged SpaceX by 5-7 years on major milestones (reusability, large rockets). This could be Blue Origin reading the same market signal Jeff Bezos saw at Amazon circa 1999 — and accelerating before the window closes. The timing (March 2026) is notable: Project Sunrise announcement comes one week after Starship Flight 12 static fire prep, and one month after NG-2 booster reuse is established with NG-3.
 
 ## Curator Notes
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[launch-cost-is-the-keystone-variable]] (Project Sunrise changes the demand-side economics, not just supply-side cost)
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: launch-cost-is-the-keystone-variable (Project Sunrise changes the demand-side economics, not just supply-side cost)
 WHY ARCHIVED: Major strategic shift — Blue Origin declaring orbital data center megaconstellation introduces new vertical integration vector that could transform New Glenn's unit economics and Blue Origin's competitive position
 EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the vertical integration parallel to SpaceX/Starlink AND the AI-demand-as-orbital-driver thesis. Both are genuinely novel KB contributions.

inbox/queue/2026-03-22-ng3-not-launched-5th-session.md

@@ -38,9 +38,9 @@ tags: [new-glenn, blue-origin, NG-3, launch-cadence, reusability, AST-SpaceMobil
 **What I expected but didn't find:** Any scrub explanation or updated NET date beyond "March 2026." The absence of communication is itself informative — it suggests either a technical hold that Blue Origin doesn't want to publicize, or a range/regulatory delay.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility]] — NG-3 delay extends AST SpaceMobile's dependency on New Glenn's launch cadence; strengthens the single-player dependency claim in a new direction (customer dependency on single launch vehicle)
+- single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility — NG-3 delay extends AST SpaceMobile's dependency on New Glenn's launch cadence; strengthens the single-player dependency claim in a new direction (customer dependency on single launch vehicle)
 - Launch cadence claims — Blue Origin's stated 8 launches/year target looks increasingly optimistic with NG-3 still not launched in month 3
-- [[landing-reliability-as-independent-bottleneck]] — the NG-3 delay may not be reliability-related, but if it is, this would strengthen that claim
+- landing-reliability-as-independent-bottleneck — the NG-3 delay may not be reliability-related, but if it is, this would strengthen that claim
 
 **Extraction hints:**
 1. "Blue Origin's New Glenn has demonstrated orbital insertion capability (NG-1, NG-2) but has not yet demonstrated the launch cadence required to serve committed commercial customers on schedule" (confidence: likely — evidenced by 5-session NG-3 delay and AST SpaceMobile commercial impact)
@@ -49,6 +49,6 @@ tags: [new-glenn, blue-origin, NG-3, launch-cadence, reusability, AST-SpaceMobil
 **Context:** NG-3 is carrying a first booster reuse. Blue Origin's incentive is to get this launch right — the booster-recovery track record matters enormously for their commercial proposition. The delay may reflect extra caution on the first reuse flight. But 5 sessions of "imminent" without explanation is extraordinary.
 
 ## Curator Notes
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility]] (customer concentration risk on single launch provider)
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility (customer concentration risk on single launch provider)
 WHY ARCHIVED: Longitudinal Pattern 2 evidence — strongest data point yet for institutional timeline slippage, now with measurable commercial stakes
 EXTRACTION HINT: The claim to extract is about launch cadence demonstration being independent of orbital insertion capability — Blue Origin has proved the latter but not the former

inbox/queue/2026-03-22-voyager-technologies-q4-fy2025-starlab-financials.md

@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ tags: [Starlab, Voyager-Technologies, commercial-station, financials, NASA-miles
 
 **KB connections:**
 - Capital formation as post-threshold constraint — Voyager's financial structure shows how Phase 2 NASA funding is integrated into the capital plan (milestone payments sustain development; Phase 2 would dramatically accelerate)
-- [[single-player-dependency]] — Voyager's financial health makes Starlab a more robust second player than Orbital Reef
+- single-player-dependency — Voyager's financial health makes Starlab a more robust second player than Orbital Reef
 
 **Extraction hints:**
 1. "Commercial space station developers require government anchor funding (Phase 2 CLD) to bridge the gap between Phase 1 design milestone payments and the capital required for manufacturing and systems integration" (confidence: likely — evidenced by Voyager's capital structure and Phase 1 vs. Phase 2 funding comparison)

inbox/queue/2026-03-congress-iss-2032-extension-gap-risk.md

@@ -43,8 +43,8 @@ None of the commercial stations have announced firm launch dates. ISS 2030 retir
 **What I expected but didn't find:** A clear legislative path for the ISS 2032 extension. The bill exists (NASA Authorization), but whether it passes and is signed is unclear. The ISS 2030 retirement date is still the operational assumption for most programs.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[space-governance-must-be-designed-before-settlements-exist]] — Congress extending ISS is governance filling the gap that commercial timelines created
-- [[multiplanetary-attractor-state-achievable-within-30-years]] — a post-ISS gap weakens this thesis: continuous human presence in LEO is a prerequisite for the attractor state
+- space-governance-must-be-designed-before-settlements-exist — Congress extending ISS is governance filling the gap that commercial timelines created
+- multiplanetary-attractor-state-achievable-within-30-years — a post-ISS gap weakens this thesis: continuous human presence in LEO is a prerequisite for the attractor state
 - Claims about government-as-anchor-customer — this confirms government demand is the structural load-bearer
 
 **Extraction hints:**
@@ -55,6 +55,6 @@ None of the commercial stations have announced firm launch dates. ISS 2030 retir
 **Context:** The ISS has been continuously inhabited since November 2000 — 25+ years of human presence. Congress is extending it not because it's technically superior, but because the alternative is a capability gap. This is the most vivid illustration of how government institutions create market demand in space — by maintaining platforms that commercial operators depend on for revenue and experience.
 
 ## Curator Notes
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[space-governance-must-be-designed-before-settlements-exist]]
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: space-governance-must-be-designed-before-settlements-exist
 WHY ARCHIVED: National security framing of LEO presence elevates this beyond commercial economics — government creating demand by maintaining supply, inverting the typical market structure
 EXTRACTION HINT: The Tiangong-as-only-inhabited-station scenario is the most politically compelling claim candidate — extract with exact temporal framing (if no commercial station by 2030)

inbox/queue/2026-03-exterra-orbital-reef-competitive-position.md

@@ -39,8 +39,8 @@ tags: [orbital-reef, blue-origin, sierra-space, commercial-station, competitive-
 **What I expected but didn't find:** Any signal that Blue Origin is prioritizing Orbital Reef over Project Sunrise. The March 21 NSF article about Blue Origin's manufacturing ramp + data center ambitions doesn't address Orbital Reef status. Blue Origin's internal priority stack is opaque.
 
 **KB connections:**
-- [[single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility]] — Orbital Reef's structural weakness (Phase 1 only, $172M vs $2.55B Axiom) validates the fragility argument from a different angle: the second-place player is fragile
-- [[space-economy-market-structure]] — the execution gap between Axiom/Vast (manufacturing) vs Starlab (design-to-manufacturing) vs Orbital Reef (still in design) shows multi-tier market formation
+- single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility — Orbital Reef's structural weakness (Phase 1 only, $172M vs $2.55B Axiom) validates the fragility argument from a different angle: the second-place player is fragile
+- space-economy-market-structure — the execution gap between Axiom/Vast (manufacturing) vs Starlab (design-to-manufacturing) vs Orbital Reef (still in design) shows multi-tier market formation
 
 **Extraction hints:**
 1. "Commercial space station market has stratified into three tiers by development phase (March 2026): manufacturing (Axiom, Vast), design-to-manufacturing transition (Starlab), and late design (Orbital Reef)" (confidence: likely — evidenced by milestone comparisons)
@@ -49,6 +49,6 @@ tags: [orbital-reef, blue-origin, sierra-space, commercial-station, competitive-
 **Context:** Mike Turner at Exterra JSC has deep ISS supply chain expertise. His framing that "technical competence alone cannot overcome execution timing gaps" is an industry practitioner assessment, not just external analysis.
 
 ## Curator Notes
-PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility]] (Orbital Reef as the fragile second player whose failure would concentrate the market further)
+PRIMARY CONNECTION: single-player-dependency-is-greatest-near-term-fragility (Orbital Reef as the fragile second player whose failure would concentrate the market further)
 WHY ARCHIVED: Best available competitive landscape assessment for commercial station market tiering — useful for extracting market structure claims
 EXTRACTION HINT: The three-tier stratification (manufacturing / design-to-mfg / late design) is the extractable claim — it's specific enough to disagree with and evidenced by milestone comparisons