docs(adr): ADR-0012 correction, Sandbox requires the transfer and the charter at entry

docs/adr/0012-open-source-and-aaif-donation-posture.md

@@ -32,3 +32,40 @@ projects, roadmap, OpenSSF Best Practices badge).
 ## Consequences
 - Every public-facing claim in the README follows the three-shelf rule: agent claims here, authority claims cited.
 - Sandbox's 12-month Growth clock means the proposal is filed only when two unaffiliated adopters are plausible.
+
+## Correction, appended 2026-10-08: Sandbox requires the transfer and the charter at entry
+
+The 2026-09-05 correction above was wrong, and the first version of the Context was right. It read the
+Sandbox announcement, which summarises, instead of the policy, which governs. The governing text is
+`aaif/technical-committee`, `governance/project-lifecycle-policy.md`: Sandbox was added there on
+2026-07-08 (commit `d26a92cd`) and Governing Board approval on 2026-08-17 (`b021aaa8`). Its Sandbox
+acceptance criteria, verbatim:
+
+1. "Released under an OSI-approved permissive license."
+2. "Have a working implementation."
+3. "Have at least one actively committing maintainer, with documented intent to grow the contributor base."
+4. "Provide a short written thesis (1-2 pages) covering who would use the project, what would justify
+   Growth graduation, and either documented early external interest or a credible argument for why the
+   project matters pre-adoption."
+5. "Meet the standard AAIF requirements: transfer of project trademarks and other assets to the LF, and
+   adoption of the LF technical charter."
+6. "Receive an absolute majority vote (>50%) of the Technical Committee, subject to final approval of the
+   Governing Board."
+
+The same policy sets the clock: "Projects are expected to apply for Growth within twelve months; otherwise
+the Technical Committee opens an Emeritus/archival discussion." Graduation needs "documented production use
+by at least two unaffiliated organizations" and "commits from at least two organizations over the prior six
+months, named committers, and a documented committer-acceptance process." The proposal form asks the
+proposer to agree to donate all project trademarks and accounts, and names an organisation signatory for the
+contribution agreement. The copy of the process under `aaif/project-proposals` predates Sandbox and is stale.
+
+What this changes:
+
+- Point 5 of the Decision stands, and is now concrete: the contribution agreement assigns trademarks,
+  domains and accounts (not copyright; Apache-2.0 and the DCO remain the inbound terms), so legal review
+  must cover the signatory, the list of what transfers, and the name.
+- **The name.** "Trinity" is a crowded mark, with registrations and pending applications in Class 42
+  software and AI services. It stays the code name and the package prefix; a public mark is chosen and
+  cleared by counsel before any proposal or public launch.
+- **The binding constraint is the twelve-month clock, not the paperwork.** The Consequence above already
+  said the proposal waits until two unaffiliated adopters are plausible; that is now the policy's own bar.