> Recovery provenance: GitHub source commit `6071bf22ae949f56c689aa98d7aa384d3ed22bcd`, SHA-256 `ead521766a6c53af0253db6a49fc382dda3b1b7f698db1473a63b5a774e437a3`. Private native labels omitted; the historical wording and open source-authentication limitations are preserved. This note concerns the 21-April email carrier; the separate 10-June recording has its own later direct-delivery correction.

# AC2016-EMAIL-001 — public source note

## Published derivative

- **Document represented:** visible reply headed `Re: CONVOCATORIA SUN PARK`, dated 21 April 2016 at 09:47.
- **Available carrier:** a message forwarded in 2026 that reproduces a visible 18–21 April 2016 chain.
- **Publication form:** reconstructed, permanently redacted SVG plus mechanically rendered PNG and WebP.
- **Not published:** the Gmail interface, raw carrier, direct addresses, telephone numbers, postal address, avatar, signatures, account identifiers, message or attachment tokens, and irrelevant interface metadata.

## Visible chain preserved by the carrier

1. 18 April 2016: Pamanil says it sent the notice for the 26 April meeting and asks whether the recipients will attend.
2. 21 April 2016 at 00:21: Gil challenges the Community administrator's figures as erroneous, refers to supporting Community minutes, and again requests documents.
3. 21 April 2016 at 09:08: Gil asks the Insolvency Administrator for signed authority for his attendance and for the copied PwC lawyers to accompany him.
4. 21 April 2016 at 09:47: the reproduced reply says attendance itself needs no authority, asserts that unpaid Community fees prevent voting, refuses to authorise the proposed PwC engagement, asks the copied professionals not to provide services to Luchy without express consent, and refers to treasury, necessity, proposed fees, and the author's own court-approved fees.

## Evidential boundary

The derivative records the wording reproduced by the available carrier. It does not authenticate a native 2016 message, complete original headers, delivery, reading, attachment identity, or the completeness of the historical chain. The statements about arrears, voting, treasury, fee approval, and priority remain statements made in the reproduced reply; they are not independently proved by this exhibit.

The reply concerns the proposed provision of services to LPB/Luchy. It does not determine Gil Marer's separately claimed capacities for Matkator, CEXP, the Owners' Community, or personally, nor any separate PwC mandate. An alleged balance may be relevant to LPB's vote if the applicable requirements were met. It does not determine who validly convened, constituted, represented, or bound the Community, or whether notice, offices, quorum, proxies, and resolution-specific voting thresholds existed.

## Related private source package — separate carrier

The five substantive PDFs were recovered from a **separate 2026 forward of Pamanil's 18 April message**. The 21 April carrier contains only three inline signature/rendering images. The present evidence therefore does not prove that the five PDFs were attached to, received with, or read before the Administrator's 21 April reply.

| Opaque source reference | Pages | SHA-256 |
|---|---:|---|
| `AC2016-ATTACHMENT-01` | 2 | `764e7b63a8507c4ca942032b39ee7838c4f3b32dedae1fd0161f093784a09bb9` |
| `AC2016-ATTACHMENT-02` | 1 | `dea97881acc26b6b7758eab176b8bcd3848504885746afb6dfc08b45dc43714c` |
| `AC2016-ATTACHMENT-03` | 6 | `0ba34e23a7505fcfec8d06dff60cbd66ea8b933be6d4ed81f8777da119224d0f` |
| `AC2016-ATTACHMENT-04` | 1 | `813d898b8046f3a7ec4a9058adc1cd67fa8e54b241f238dab7b6f971549fc592` |
| `AC2016-ATTACHMENT-05` | 38 | `d67f88c7243e84e1ceb89ecd0ef14dd4c199449d9fc6053282ddb7fc14b49c65` |

The 38-page November 2015 ACTA binary is also present with the identical hash in a native Gmail Sent message dated 12 May 2016, which materially strengthens its temporal provenance. The confidential lawyer-facing message body is not public. All five PDFs remain custody sources pending document-by-document privacy, provenance, transcription, and redaction review; none is embedded in this public derivative.

The package records a meeting agenda covering 2010–2015 accounts, 2016 budget/fees, objections to balances, liquidation/certification of alleged debtor balances, litigation authority, penalties, banking, and proceedings involving LPB. Its budget leaves the bank balance as `???` and several major operating lines at zero as unable to be detailed. Its property-code schedule attributes positive balances to all 262 elements and totals €3,866,774.25, without owner names, transaction ledgers, CEXP funding, credits, or set-offs. These facts create reconciliation questions; they do not prove debt validity, invalidity, or intent.

## Custody-hash reconciliation

The currently connected mailbox produces a 54,647-byte raw export of the 21 April carrier with SHA-256 `f3f558c118b06b3b07034eb279afb90a7b179a5203dfc79c1ff729ce544aa2e1`. A legacy repository record contains a different carrier hash. The source file and serialization method underlying that legacy hash have not yet been identified. Neither value is presented as a hash of the native 2016 message, and the legacy value must not be silently replaced.

## Open recovery gates

- native 2016 `.eml` or equivalent export and complete headers;
- original attachments and attachment-to-message binding;
- exact 2016 court order defining the intervention regime and faculties;
- engagement/client/payer documents for PwC in each claimed capacity;
- Community office, notice, proxy, quorum, owner-and-coefficient voting, accounts, budget, debt, challenge, deposit, and reconciliation records;
- evidence of what each recipient received, read, understood, or did.

## Reuse rule

Every visual reuse must link to one of the canonical bilingual evidence pages, preserve the later-forwarded-copy warning, and keep editorial analysis outside the source image. Corrections and replies must be linked with equivalent visibility.