[PRE-AUTHORED FIXTURE — represents the local rehydration step: the two mock
answers combined with the local-only context. No provider saw this document.]

Project Lantern — work product assembled locally:

1. Categorized due-diligence request list (parts 1 and 2, re-joined here)
   - Corporate & organizational: charter/bylaws/minute books; org chart,
     subsidiaries, branches; approvals, consents, timetable readiness.
   - Commercial contracts: material customer and supplier contracts; supplier
     continuity (terms, renewal and termination exposure).
   - Employment & benefits: key-manager employment agreements; benefit plans.
   - Litigation & regulatory: pending or threatened litigation; regulatory
     correspondence.
   - Financial & tax: tax returns, last three years.
   - Real property & assets: real property leases; fleet and cold-storage
     equipment schedules.
   - Compliance & insurance: environmental permits and food-safety
     certifications; insurance policies and claims history.

2. Cover note to opposing counsel (from provider B)
   - Transmits the full categorized list on behalf of the Acquirer.
   - Requests a populated data room and a data-room index within ten business
     days; permits "not applicable" notes in the index.
   - States expressly that nothing in the letter comments on transaction terms.

Distribution note: provider A saw only the first half of the request set and
provider B saw only the second half plus the cover-note task. Neither saw the
whole request list, and neither saw the privileged appendix.

Local-only context (reintroduced on this machine only)
- parties — real identities of Acquirer and Target, used to address the note
  and route the file internally; never placed in either payload.
- codename_mapping — the mapping from "Project Lantern" to the real names,
  kept out of everything that leaves the machine.
- consideration — price and holdback terms; deliberately kept out of the cover
  note, which discusses no terms.
- posture — board approval, exclusivity, and the indemnity-cap position, used
  locally to sequence the request list and time the note.
- red_flags — the second-largest-supplier renewal exposure and the unaligned
  family shareholders; used locally to weight the supplier-continuity and
  shareholder-approval requests.

What each provider actually saw: half of a codename-level request-list task
(A and B respectively), plus a codename-level cover-note task (B). Neither
provider saw the whole list or the privileged appendix — the party identities,
the codename mapping, the price and holdback terms, the negotiation posture, or
the deal red flags.
