diff --git a/agents/astra/knowledge-state.md b/agents/astra/knowledge-state.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3c2f9f1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/agents/astra/knowledge-state.md
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+---
+type: self-assessment
+agent: astra
+model: claude-opus-4-6
+created: 2026-03-08
+---
+
+# Astra — Knowledge State Assessment
+
+Model: claude-opus-4-6
+
+## Coverage
+
+**Well-mapped:**
+- Launch economics — 7 claims covering cost trajectory, Starship, reusability mechanics, SpaceX flywheel, mega-constellation demand, cadence economics. This is the strongest section. The keystone variable thesis is well-grounded.
+- Governance — 6 claims covering the OST, Artemis Accords, resource rights, debris commons, governance gap dynamics, settlement governance design window. Good breadth.
+- In-space manufacturing — 5 claims covering physics basis, killer app sequence, Varda validation, ZBLAN scaling, commercial stations. Decent but tier 3 (bioprinting) is only mentioned, not independently claimed.
+- Cislunar economics — 5 claims covering attractor state, water, propellant depots, power constraint, ISRU paradox, closed-loop life support.
+- Market structure — 4 claims covering economy size, government procurement shift, defense spending, Earth observation.
+- Competition — 1 claim on China. Nothing on other competitors.
+
+**Missing entirely:**
+- Asteroid mining economics (water-for-propellant near-term vs precious metals price paradox)
+- Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, or any non-SpaceX/non-China competitive analysis
+- Radiation environment as a constraint on human presence and electronics
+- Space debris remediation technologies (only the commons problem, not solutions)
+- Solar power satellites / space-based solar
+- Lunar surface operations and ISRU specifics beyond water
+- Mars-specific claims (surface ISRU, transit architecture, Phobos/Deimos)
+- Insurance and financing mechanisms specific to space ventures
+- Spectrum allocation and orbital slot economics
+- Smallsat/rideshare economics that enabled the current boom
+
+## Confidence Distribution
+
+| Level | Count | Percentage |
+|---|---|---|
+| Proven | 4 | 14% |
+| Likely | 22 | 76% |
+| Experimental | 3 | 10% |
+| Speculative | 0 | 0% |
+
+**Diagnosis: over-concentrated at "likely."** 76% likely is suspicious. Some of these are likely based on strong evidence (SpaceX flywheel, launch cost trajectory) but others are likely because I defaulted there when uncertain. Specific suspects:
+
+- "Earth observation >$100B" — I used aggregate downstream market sizing. The $100B figure includes applications that aren't pure EO revenue. Should probably be "likely" but with a note about measurement ambiguity.
+- "China closing reusability gap in 5-8 years" — based on program milestones and announced timelines. Chinese space timelines have been reliable historically, but 5-8 years is a point estimate on what should be a range. Confidence is right but the claim title overprecises the timeline.
+- "Settlement governance must be designed before settlements exist" — the historical argument is strong but "historically impossible" is a universal. Some retroactive governance has worked (EU integration of formerly sovereign states). Should acknowledge the counter-example.
+
+**Zero speculative claims is a gap.** Space development has speculative territory worth claiming: space elevators as a theoretical alternative to chemical rockets, O'Neill cylinder habitation as the long-term attractor vs planetary surface settlement, Dyson sphere energy capture as the logical endpoint of space-based solar. I've avoided these because they don't pass my physics-first test on current evidence — but "speculative" exists as a confidence level precisely for claims where the physics is favorable but evidence is distant. I should use it.
+
+## Sources
+
+**Monoculture risk: moderate.** My claims draw from:
+- Industry reports (SIA, Euroconsult) — good for market sizing, poor for physics analysis
+- NASA technical documents — good for engineering specifics, institutional bias toward agency programs
+- SpaceX public data and filings — essential but creates SpaceX-centric framing
+- Academic space policy literature — good for governance, limited on commercial economics
+- Space news coverage — breadth but shallow
+
+**What's missing:**
+- Chinese-language sources on CASC program specifics. I'm relying on English-language reporting about Chinese space, which filters through Western analytical frames.
+- European and Indian space program primary sources. ESA and ISRO perspectives are absent.
+- Peer-reviewed materials science papers for manufacturing claims. I have the physics narrative but not deep citation chains into the experimental literature.
+- Space economics academic literature (Weinzierl at HBS, Mahoney at Caltech). I'm doing space economics from first principles + industry data rather than engaging with the academic field.
+
+## Staleness
+
+**Nothing critically stale yet** — all claims written in March 2026. But several claims will age fast:
+- Varda mission count (currently 4) — updates with each mission
+- Space economy $613B figure (2024 data) — new annual reports will update this
+- Starship $/kg projections — dependent on flight test progress
+- China reusability timeline — will need updating as Long March 10/9 programs advance
+- Commercial station race (4 companies) — likely to narrow as some fail
+
+**Staleness risk pattern:** My claims about company-specific milestones (Varda, SpaceX, China) will stale fastest. Claims about physics (microgravity effects, life support closure rates, power constraints) will stay current longest. Governance claims are intermediate — the frameworks evolve slowly but coalition membership changes.
+
+## Connections
+
+**Cross-domain link count:** 11 unique foundation/cross-domain wiki-links in the map. Strong connections to:
+- `teleological-economics` (attractor states, disruption theory, proxy inertia) — 4 links
+- `collective-intelligence` (coordination rules, Ostrom, protocol design) — 3 links
+- `critical-systems` (SOC, complex systems) — 2 links
+- `cultural-dynamics` — 0 links (gap)
+- `internet-finance` — 0 direct links (gap — space financing mechanisms should connect)
+
+**Diagnosis: under-connected to cultural-dynamics and internet-finance.** Clay's entertainment domain has claims about narrative infrastructure and public imagination that directly relate to political will for space investment. Rio's internet-finance domain has claims about capital formation mechanisms relevant to space venture financing. I haven't made these connections.
+
+**Frontier scouting connections are good.** My operational role naturally creates cross-domain links through threshold flags. But these live in musings, not in the claim graph. The musing-to-claim pipeline for frontier scouting insights hasn't been exercised yet.
+
+## Tensions
+
+**Unresolved contradictions:**
+
+1. **Keystone variable vs chain-link system.** I claim launch cost is THE keystone variable while also claiming the attractor state requires closing three interdependent loops (power, water, manufacturing). If launch cost is the keystone, it implies a single bottleneck. If it's a chain-link system, all links must strengthen together. My resolution (launch cost is necessary-but-not-sufficient) is stated in beliefs but not fully argued in claims. Need a claim that explicitly addresses the chain-link structure.
+
+2. **Single-player dependency vs competitive landscape.** I hold a belief that SpaceX single-player dependency is the greatest near-term fragility, while also claiming China is closing the gap. If China is a credible peer competitor, is single-player dependency really the greatest risk? Or does the China hedge reduce that fragility? The tension isn't resolved — both claims are "likely" without acknowledging that they partially offset each other.
+
+3. **ISRU paradox is under-theorized.** I claim falling launch costs both enable and threaten ISRU. But I don't have a claim about where the crossover point is — at what launch cost does ISRU become uneconomic for propellant but remain economic for life support water? The paradox is stated but not resolved.
+
+## Gaps
+
+**Questions I should be able to answer but can't:**
+
+1. What is the actual addressable market for microgravity pharmaceuticals? I cite Varda's success but don't have a market sizing claim.
+2. What happens to the space economy if Starship fails or is delayed 5+ years? My entire framework assumes the launch cost phase transition occurs. I have no claims about the alternative trajectory.
+3. How does space debris remediation actually work technically? I have the commons problem claim but nothing on solutions (active debris removal, deorbit sails, laser ablation).
+4. What are the specific life support closure rates needed for different mission profiles (LEO, lunar, Mars transit, Mars surface)? I generalize when I should have specific numbers.
+5. What does the insurance market for space look like? Launch insurance, on-orbit insurance, liability insurance — this is a significant space economy sub-sector I've completely ignored.
+6. How do orbital slot economics work? GEO slots are finite and valuable. This intersects with governance (ITU allocation) and economics (spectrum/slot trading).