This is a separate AI session for reopening and handing over Calder Yards. Use HANDOFF.json and the connected Laydyne MCP. The recorder has reloaded the same browser profile and put a blank temporary workspace in the editor; its named browser projects are persistent. Call tools sequentially and use current expectedRevision for each write.

1. Find the named browser project "Calder Yards — UC5 A/B/C", inspect its current revision and previousVersions, and open the saved project using its ID and expectedProjectRevision. Confirm its building geometry hash and floor/part/connection counts against HANDOFF.json and confirm UC5 A/B/C and the saved A/B process comparison are present. Do not claim every serialized byte is identical: opening creates a history entry and may change the view/workspace metadata.
2. Correct a concrete preparation error before the final handover: the original L18 has level 17, elevation 63.9 m and height 3.2 m, but this run's S2 prompt supplied levels 19/20 for IDs L19/L20. The recorder copied those numbers from the reference edits.mjs without checking the original zero-based levels; research/change-management section 3 itself did not specify numeric levels. This is an execution-preparation error, not a product bug. It makes the displayed numbers L20/L21. Their correct levels are 18/19, elevations 67.1/70.3 m and heights 3.2 m. Confirm these from the original and correct only the two new floors' metadata, preserving all parts and eight connections. Verify floor order, labels, elevations/heights, all endpoints, and all 22 floors.
   First preserve the uncorrected C inputs as clearly named draft snapshots: restore uc5-c and save the same design input as id uc5-c-draft, name "UC5 C draft — incorrect floor numbers; superseded by C final"; save the same process input under that draft name. Verify the draft copies' geometry/scenario/input hashes against the original C snapshots. Once preserved, remove only the ambiguous original uc5-c and its original C process option, replacing their labels with the draft copies. The original S2 outputs remain preserved by the recorder. Do not delete any original A/B options, comparison, or history to shrink the project.
   After correcting the live floors, save new design id uc5-c-final and a new process input named "UC5 C final — café extended and homes L19/L20". Do not rerun any simulations. Update HANDOFF.designOptionIds.c and HANDOFF.processOptionIds.c to the final IDs, and add the draft IDs separately. Compare B to C final and A to C final; quantities and eight new connections should match S2 while displayed levels are now correct.
3. Read the saved A/B process comparison without rerunning it. State its seeds/runs and the actual café waiting difference and conditions. Read the persisted change log. Show that original A and changed B can be restored independently while C final remains saved. Finish on C final in a 3D building overview with no selected floor; retain L1 as activeFloor for the café drawings.
4. Request the L1 change-marked 2D drawing from UC5 A to UC5 B and a scaled L1 PDF with an appropriate revision/title block. Inspect the 3D of the final building. Large files will be collected by the recorder from the same MCP calls and saved for the article; you do not need to retype their base64 bytes.
5. Save the finalized project by updating the same named browser project with its current expectedProjectRevision. Then open/read it back in this session and verify C final's geometry, counts, options and saved comparison. Distinguish this finalized readback from the initial step-1 readback of S2's draft. Update HANDOFF.json with the final IDs/hash/saved revision and any new drawing issue IDs.
6. Write a concise S3-handover.md (at most 1,200 words): what changed, the conditional recommendation, limitations, the initial and final readback results, draft numbering correction, saved options/revision, and how to reopen the exported .laydyne.json in a different browser. S1-results.md and S2-results.md already retain detailed tables; do not repeat those full tables. Record remaining findings rather than inventing a pass.

This proves a synthetic edit/compare/save/reopen workflow. It does not prove that management is easier than an AI's own files, real-facility prediction, construction approval or ROI. Do not rerun the simulations, add features, or alter unrelated parts.