An open question is not a failure of Stewardship when it is visible, bounded, and being held deliberately.
Fullheart does not yet know its final legal or organizational vehicle.
The structure should follow the purpose, not the other way around. Fullheart should choose a structure because it helps carry its commitments, not choose commitments because a familiar structure makes them convenient.
What remains unresolved is the final shape of that ownership: whether Artists participate directly, whether stewards or workers participate in some form, whether Patrons ever participate, how founder ownership evolves, how capital may or may not participate, and what transfer rights any future structure should permit.
The question is how Fullheart can make it harder for future owners or leaders to strip away Artist centrality, non-extractive economics, and the deeper purpose of the work for short-term gain.
It also established that authority should be legible, bounded, reviewable, and transferable when responsibility changes.
Some terms may stay transitional, some technical, some historical. Publication still has a place where Product needs it. Bridge may or may not become durable vocabulary. Current wording can change as the work matures. Open language is not a sign that Fullheart lacks discipline. It is a sign that the collective is refusing to over-canonicalize the first available phrase.
Keeping a question open is responsible only if Fullheart remains willing to answer it when reality requires an answer. Open questions must not become a way to dodge legal responsibility, economic clarity, succession, or conflict resolution. Deliberate openness is not the same as indefinite evasion.