Editor-checked fictional Moa Notes research memo
Scope: initial v2.1 I1–I4/R1–R6/O1–O3: 13 records, 11 people. With N1: 14 records, 12 people. D1–D3 are review instructions, not research observations.

First-team guidance: I2/R2/O3; two people U02/U11 completed after help. Counterexample R3/U06 completed independently. Compare screens and conditions; cause is unconfirmed.
Keyboard saving: v2.1 I4/O1; two people U04/U10 required assistance. Tab-order causality requires reproduction; shortcut availability is unknown.
Missing projects: I3/O2/R4; two people U03/U07 saw projects after invitation checks. Prior state and actual changes are unknown. Do not assert a search defect or confirmed permission cause.
Uploads: R1/R6; two people U05/U09. Retain performance and completion-feedback codes. Duration is unmeasured; first-upload failure is unconfirmed.
Similar names: I1/R5; U01/U08 use dates to reselect. This does not establish low impact. Preserve I1's generally successful search experience.
Help: N1/U12; one person reports outdated screen guidance. Do not generalize this to every access problem.

Next verification: keyboard-only saving and whether Next appears to be payment. These are proposed checks, not completed research or population-frequency rankings.
Holdout: H1/U13 independently saves in v2.2. Keep it separate from v2.1; do not claim a universal fix. H2/U14's viewer restriction is intended under Q1 for owner administration, not an explanation of all missing projects.
Final count after H1/H2: 16 research records, 14 people. Q1 is policy, not a person or usage observation.
Unknowns: population prevalence, upload timings, shortcuts, reinvitation changes, v2.2 change history and comparable retesting.