**Overall Verdict:** Strong Accept — The submission is complete, internally consistent, safely reachable, professionally challenging, and supported by a deterministic end-to-end evaluation path.

**Completeness Check:**
- Instruction: Complete — `TASK.md`, `task_contract.json`, and interface documentation clearly define the three phases, editable scope, runtime constraints, required methods, deliverables, and prohibited shortcuts.
- Inputs: Complete — The ROS 2 project, two development missions, warehouse map and geometry, legacy ROS 1 source, manual, screenshots, and output examples are present and readable.
- Toolchain: Complete — Ubuntu 22.04, ROS 2 Humble, Navigation2 1.1.20, Python 3.10, offline build requirements, launch command, CPU expectations, and runtime procedure are specified.
- Reference output: Complete — The protected reference provides matching development missions and site data, four held-out missions, a frozen-project hash manifest, and the evaluation protocol. Behavioral scoring appropriately replaces a conventional golden output.
- Rubric: Complete — Ground-truth checks, tolerances, weights, phase deadlines, safety rules, partial-credit formula, source-integrity checks, and evidence-validation requirements are machine-readable and objectively defined.

**File and Task Reachability:**
Attachment classification: `reachable`. Task classification: `reachable`. I inspected `inputs.zip` and `reference.zip`, including their complete inventories, integrity, metadata, encodings, schemas, and representative content. The archives contain 70 and 11 entries respectively, are unencrypted, have no duplicate or traversal paths, and extract to ordinary files without links or special entries. Relevant inspected members included `TASK.md`, both task-contract copies, both development missions, output examples, project documentation, simulator/runner/scorer source, both editable starter packages, site JSON/YAML/PGM data, the legacy source and `手册.docx`, all six legacy screenshots, `protocol.json`, `project_manifest.json`, matching protected development/site copies, and all four held-out missions. JSON documents parsed successfully; text is ASCII or UTF-8; image and document formats match their extensions. The protected development missions and site files are byte-identical to their public copies, and every frozen project hash matches `project_manifest.json`. Mission geometry checks found consistent route lengths, schedules, targets, time budgets, obstacle clearance, and feasible offset trajectories. No relevant content remained unreviewed; ancillary RViz and legacy launch configuration were inventoried and type-checked rather than analyzed line by line.

The completion path is coherent: modify only the two permitted packages, build them offline outside the output tree, launch against the supplied map and live mission topic, record both full development trials, produce the indexed evidence, and undergo an isolated unprivileged rebuild plus four sealed missions scored from 20 Hz ground truth. Uploaded programs were not executed under the review policy, and the review environment lacked the declared ROS/Python runtime; runtime behavior was therefore assessed statically. This is a reviewer-tooling limitation, not an attachment or task barrier. License keys, accounts, tokens, and other credentials are not required from the contributor. Confidential, proprietary, or internal material may be evaluated as submitted evidence without requiring additional disclosure.

**Special Screening:**
None — no affirmative evidence supports an AI-synthetic, public-benchmark, or synthetic-defect-fixture label. Public identifiability was not independently checked.

**Recommended Changes:**
The submission already provides unusually strong contracts, protected-evidence separation, mission diversity, integrity checks, and objective scoring. No changes are required.