On January 13, 2024, unit B2006 in the Aviara community suffered a burst fire pipe due to an extreme cold wave, causing extensive water damage to the ceiling, floor, and wall structures. This incident was a sudden natural disaster, and the damaged structures clearly fell within the HOA's responsibility for building systems.

1. The HOA's role as the initial handler and project initiator;
After the incident, the HOA initiated the insurance claim process and successfully obtained funds to support the restoration project;
The HOA explicitly included B2006 in the repair list and assumed all obligations, including repair coordination, contractor appointment, and construction supervision;
This means that, both organizationally and legally, the project was always under the HOA's control, with no direct initiation rights for residents.

2. The originally designated contractor by the HOA failed to perform for a long time and lacked transparent communication mechanisms;
The HOA initially commissioned Amor Restoration to handle the post-disaster reconstruction, including B2006, as the executor of the insurance-funded project. However, after the contract was signed, the company failed to start work for months, and the project was completely stalled;
More seriously, during this prolonged delay, neither the HOA nor the contractor provided any clear timetable or construction plan for the start of work;
Despite my repeated emails to the HOA inquiring about the schedule, the management company Navigate even replied that the contract with Amor Restoration did not specify any completion deadline;
This means the HOA did not set up a progress control mechanism when signing the contract, nor did it fulfill its information disclosure obligations during the project's stagnation, leaving my family in a passive state with no answers, no plan, and no recovery. Against this backdrop of serious delays and communication breakdowns, I, in good faith, informally suggested Wonda Builders LLC as a possible alternative contractor, solely to help move the project forward. I did not participate in contract evaluation, decision-making, or subsequent construction organization and arrangements.

3. Contractor recommendation was "information provision," not "decision participation"
I did not participate in price negotiations, work scope agreements, qualification reviews, or any other decision-making processes with the contractor;
The HOA and its management agent Navigate independently completed the qualification review, insurance coordination, and contract drafting for Wonda Builders, and ultimately decided to use this company as the official contractor;
Throughout the process, I had no voting rights or contract structuring authority, only providing reference information for communication.

4. On June 10, 2024, the tripartite restoration contract was officially signed
The agreement was signed by the HOA, Wonda Builders LLC, and myself, formally as a tripartite agreement, with the content clearly stating that construction control and fund allocation were entirely exercised by the HOA;
Clause 3.1 explicitly states: "The HOA is the sole payer," and I have no responsibility for cost approval or payment;
Clauses 4.3–4.5 further stipulate: "Residents may not directly interfere with construction, arrange work, or independently contact or pay subcontractors."

✅ Summary: From the beginning to the signing of the contract, the project was always fully led by the HOA.
My recommendation of the contractor was only a cooperative suggestion, without legal authorization or substantive influence;
The tripartite agreement clearly indicates the homeowner's legal status as "not the construction commander" and "not the payment approver."
Therefore, any attempt to attribute construction quality errors or inspection failures to my recommendation is a malicious distortion of the contract structure and a misplacement of responsibility.

Based on the current project phase documentation, government feedback, and on-site conditions, I believe that the contractor, Wonda Builders, committed the following serious construction violations and have reasonable suspicion that there was concealment and cover-up in uninspected areas:

1. Proceeding with structural closure before completing key inspections;
According to confirmed records, Wonda Builders did not conduct the required #160 insulation inspection by Snohomish City, nor did they submit any inspection application. In fact, the company began floor closure operations and subsequent work (such as walls, painting, lighting installation, etc.) before the insulation was installed or inspected. According to building permit management procedures, this constitutes "leapfrogging construction," which is a violation of closure procedures and directly undermines the inspection process and building compliance.

2. Navigate management company approved payment without obtaining inspection documents;
As the HOA's executive management, Navigate is directly responsible for checking payment conditions and verifying project completion. However, they approved payment of about 95% of the construction cost without verifying completion of inspection #160 or waiting for the final inspection report (#199);
This indicates a serious lack of payment review procedures by Navigate, and they may have been misled by the contractor's misleading information, failing to exercise proper supervisory judgment.

3. Reasonable suspicion: The contractor deliberately skipped mandatory construction steps to save costs;
Wonda Builders did not leave visible insulation material under the floor, nor did they provide photos or records of material use at this stage. Once the floor is closed, it is difficult for subsequent inspectors to verify whether insulation was actually installed. This behavior objectively covers up construction deficiencies. Given the current rise in material and labor costs, the contractor has ample reason to deliberately skip insulation to save costs. Even if subjective intent cannot be directly proven, the result itself constitutes a serious violation, causing rework damage and compliance interruption risks for residents.

4. The HOA, as the project payer and supervisor, bears responsibility for oversight failure;
According to contract law and the principle of coordinated responsibility for building permits, payment should only be made after completion milestones are met. Navigate did not verify whether the floor structure had passed county inspection, which constitutes management negligence. The HOA, having signed the tripartite agreement and paid directly, must also bear institutional responsibility for compliance failures.

✅ Summary:
This case is not a simple construction error, but a serious breach involving the contractor's possible deliberate leapfrogging, misleading the HOA, and attempting to evade inspection responsibility.
Navigate management failed to perform basic review duties, resulting in payment process oversight, which allowed the problem to be covered up and delayed, ultimately escalating into irreversible comprehensive rework. I will request the HOA to review Navigate's internal procedures in subsequent processes and recommend pursuing the contractor's compliance breach and compensation liability according to law.

Based on the construction permit documents, project communications, and feedback from the Snohomish County building regulatory system, there were serious omissions in key processes during construction, especially violations of mandatory inspection requirements. This led to the project being unable to proceed to final inspection and forced into physical demolition and correction. The specific facts are as follows:

1. Inspection #160 (Insulation Inspection) was never performed;
Snohomish County's permit inspection records show that Inspection #160, i.e., the underfloor insulation inspection, was never applied for or performed in this project;
This inspection is a mandatory step before floor closure, as required by local building codes for structural projects. Without a record of passing this inspection, any "closure" operation itself constitutes a procedural violation.

2. Inspection #199 (Final Inspection) could not be applied for;
The inspection system shows that the project never submitted a Final Inspection (#199) because the prerequisite #160 was not completed. Since the floor was already fully closed, inspectors could not visually verify the insulation, and the inspection process was physically blocked. This means that to achieve compliance, the floor must be physically removed → insulation reinstalled → #160 inspection performed → only then can #199 final inspection be applied for.

3. The government did not directly issue a "rework order," but rework became a technical and regulatory obligation;
Snohomish County did not issue a written order explicitly requiring "rework," but its permit status page clearly indicated that this inspection was not completed and the inspection process could not continue. Because Wonda Builders closed the floor without inspection, it became technically "impossible to redo" the inspection, making physical rework unavoidable. Legally, while this is not an "administrative order," it is a mandatory procedural correction. If not performed, the inspection cannot proceed and the project cannot be legally closed.

4. Residents had no participation or control in the process;
As the homeowner, I did not have the authority to apply for inspections or decide construction milestones, nor was I ever authorized to handle inspection applications or scheduling;
Therefore, the failure to apply for #160 and the blockage of #199 were both failures of the contractor and the HOA (or its management agent Navigate) in professional execution and process supervision. Shifting the consequences of rework to residents who have no construction authority has no legal or governance basis.

✅ Summary:
The current physical rework of the project is not a "service proactively provided" by the HOA or contractor, nor is it "passive handling due to residents' delayed move-out."
Rather, it is a procedural interruption caused by leapfrogging in the construction process, which must be corrected through physical demolition and restoration to regain compliance.
This chain of responsibility must return to the contractor and supervisory parties themselves, and under no circumstances should residents be held responsible or required to bear the consequential costs.

After the rework incident, the contractor repeatedly made the following evasive statements in emails:
"It was the County that raised new inspection requirements at a later stage;"
"The project was not truly completed; it was the resident's early move-in that interrupted the process;"
"We never declared the project fully completed."

I hereby provide the following factual checks and legal rebuttals:

1. The contractor did formally declare the project "completed"
On August 12, 2024, Wonda Builders sent a written email to Navigate and the HOA, clearly stating that "the project is substantially completed" and requested the final payment;
The HOA management completed the payment based on this, indicating that the HOA accepted the "completion statement" as a true and credible document with legal consequences;
This email served as the basis for the contractor to trigger the contract payment mechanism.

2. The contract explicitly ties payment to "substantial completion"
Clause 3.8 of the contract clearly states: only after "substantial completion" of the project can the contractor request the final payment;
The HOA's payment of the final installment means it accepted the contractor's statement as establishing "completion" status;
The contractor cannot both receive payment and claim "incomplete work"—this is clearly inconsistent with the contract terms and logic.

3. The "new County requirements" claim is not credible
Building permits and inspection processes have strict records and system updates;
If the contractor failed to check the relevant permit inspection nodes (such as #160 insulation inspection) before construction, it is a failure of their professional responsibility;
Even if there were policy adjustments, the contractor should have proactively updated and coordinated the process during construction, not shift the consequences of their own failure to follow procedures onto "new rules" after the project ended and failed inspection.

4. "Resident's early move-in" does not shift responsibility
I moved in only after the HOA accepted the completion statement and paid the contractor, which constitutes reliance on an official declaration;
If the contractor believed the project was "not yet complete," they should have formally notified me or advised the HOA to withhold payment;
By failing to warn and still requesting payment, the contractor voluntarily recognized the project as delivered and cannot later deny it after failure.

✅ Summary:
All of the contractor's current explanations contradict their previous statements, contract payment milestones, and behavioral patterns.
From the timeline, contractual obligations, and legal logic, none of their arguments hold up.
I request that the HOA not accept their "post hoc reconstruction of facts" and instead base responsibility on the signed contract and payment actions, and consider formally reviewing the contractor's breach and pursuing legal accountability.

In the fall of 2024, following notification from the county government and feedback from the contractor, unit B2006 was required to undergo mandatory rework due to missing insulation. After October 2024, the contractor repeatedly stated in emails that the rework would take about 70 working days, plus weekends, totaling nearly 100 calendar days;
During this period, residents must "completely move out" and clear the premises, otherwise floor removal and hidden work cannot proceed;
Navigate did not dispute this requirement in subsequent communications, nor did they assist in resolving related issues.

Based on this, I am facing the following actual losses and unreasonable positions from the other parties:

1. The move-out requirement was clearly issued by the contractor
It should be noted: the move-out requirement was not initiated by Navigate, but was issued by the contractor for "technical engineering needs";
Navigate, as the management party, neither objected nor proactively assumed responsibility or offered any remedies on behalf of the HOA;
Therefore, both the contractor and the management party are responsible for explaining and compensating for the consequences of this mandatory requirement.

2. The HOA and contractor explicitly refused to cover move-out costs
Despite my repeated requests, the contractor did not provide any compensation commitment;
Navigate stated that "the HOA's master policy does not cover this," but also did not clarify who should advance the moving costs;
So far, neither party has agreed to cover direct economic burdens such as rent, storage, or moving labor, paralyzing my family's plans.

3. The claim that "rework cannot proceed due to failure to move out" seriously distorts the facts
I have repeatedly requested a clear responsibility and compensation mechanism before cooperating with the move-out, which is reasonable and legally protective;
However, the other parties did not communicate on this, but later claimed in emails that "the project could not continue because I did not cooperate with the move-out," which is clearly an attempt to evade their own mistakes and shift responsibility;

Such statements confuse the "sequence of causality": if the inspection failed first and violations occurred first, the obligation to rework is established, and whether the resident has moved out is not the decisive factor.
I emphasize that I have not refused to move out or obstructed the rework;
The problem is that no party is willing to bear the economic costs and arrangements during the move-out period;
In the absence of clear responsibility, I chose to reside reasonably and raise legitimate questions, which does not constitute a breach or obstruction;
If the contractor and HOA management continue to use "incomplete move-out" as an excuse for delay or blame-shifting, I reserve the right to pursue accountability and make public clarifications according to the law.

The fundamental cause of the current rework and resident losses is that the contractor Wonda Builders did not complete the mandatory permit process (especially #160 insulation inspection) before sealing the floor and submitting a false "completion" statement. Subsequently, Navigate approved and paid most of the construction costs without verifying the completion of inspection #160 or waiting for the final inspection report #199.

Accordingly, we clearly state the following facts:

1. Legal and reasonable occupancy
Our occupancy time is based on two official actions: the contractor's written claim that "the project is substantially completed" and submitted the final payment request;
Navigate, as the HOA's management agent, completed the payment without any objection based on this;
Under this background, our occupancy is based on the judgment of "good faith trust" and "formal administrative behavior," and it is impossible to require residents to conduct a second inspection of construction quality.

2. The current rework is completely due to construction and supervision violations
Inspection records show that #160 insulation inspection was never reported, violating local construction permit law;
The floor was closed before it was found missing construction steps, and rework is a technical and legal mandatory requirement, not caused by residents' behavior or decision.

3. The HOA's responsibility in the supervision chain cannot be avoided
Navigate did not verify the permit status before approving payment, constituting procedural audit negligence;
As the payment and supervision party, Navigate and HOA jointly exercise the "construction completion judgment," but failed to find major omissions, which is legally constituted negligence;
If the contractor submits a false statement, the payment approval party should also bear the consequences of inaccurate audit.

4. Cost allocation logic: Responsibility must be borne by the responsible party first
The current costs include: residents' rent, storage, travel, and life interruption losses during forced move-out;
These losses are due to construction and management party errors, and should be borne by HOA and contractor first, and then seek internal compensation through contract or insurance, not by uninvolved residents to pay or wait;
Otherwise, it is to shift the consequences of governance failure to the least decision-making party, which is extremely unbalanced in contract law and organizational governance.

Reiterate the position: We do not accept any attempt to attribute the current economic loss to the residents' own behavior, nor is it due to residents' move-out, but because of the common lack of compliance in HOA and contractor.

If HOA refuses to admit this basic responsibility chain, we will protect our own rights and claim that the responsible party should bear all direct and indirect economic consequences.

In the case of project failure and rework, both HOA and Navigate failed to fulfill their due supervision duties. We hereby formally request the following requirements and suggestions, and request that the HOA legal counsel provide a written response:

(1) HOA should actively fulfill its management responsibilities and immediately take the following measures:

1. Formally admit its responsibilities in the construction supervision and payment audit process:
Including not verifying the completion status of insulation inspection before paying construction costs, causing the contractor's misleading completion statement to be established, immediately paying for direct living expenses and economic losses caused by rework, including moving costs, storage costs, temporary housing costs, etc., to avoid residents' unreasonable losses under no fault conditions; This is governance responsibility, not paying equals not giving up recovery, should be recovered by HOA in internal process to responsible contractor or insurer.

2. Assess whether to terminate cooperation with the existing contractor:
Given that Wonda Builders has repeatedly violated the process and misled HOA, Navigate, and residents through misleading emails, its credibility is severely damaged;
HOA has the obligation to ensure construction compliance and risk control for rework, and should make timely decisions whether to replace the contractor to avoid loss expansion.

3. Actively transfer all materials and request formal legal opinion:
Currently, the situation involves: contract performance failure, construction violation, payment audit oversight, indirect resident property damage, etc., multiple legal risks;
If HOA continues to "only reply by Navigate" mode, it cannot meet management responsibility and legal review requirements.

4. Contact HOA main policy corresponding insurer to explain that the rework is due to violation behavior, should not constitute an insurance exemption event:
If HOA is worried about some costs not being able to be reimbursed through insurance, we understand its subsequent claim concerns, but this cannot be a reason for refusing to compensate residents' direct losses.

(2) We request that the HOA legal counsel provide clear legal judgment through email:

1. Whether HOA has the continuous supervision responsibility of the entire construction process;
2. Whether HOA must bear the first round of direct economic losses and pay for residents' move-out after project failure;
3. Whether Navigate exists in payment audit process, governance oversight, information inquiry governance mistakes;
4. Whether HOA should initiate formal breach handling program for Wonda Builders according to current contract terms (such as claim, replacement, contract termination, etc.);

We reiterate: If HOA does not respond to the above questions or the legal counsel does not provide clear opinions, we will consider that HOA refuses to fulfill management and rights protection responsibilities, and we will retain all legal litigation, community declaration, and public accountability rights.

Navigate, as the HOA management party, once proposed that some losses due to rework should be borne by the HO6 policy of the owner. However, we must clearly counterattack and deeply analyze from the legal logic, insurance system, and community governance three aspects:

1. First, the fundamental cause of the current loss is very clear, that the contractor did not perform the necessary insulation inspection and violated the floor structure closure;
2. HOA did not verify the permit completion status and paid 95% of the contract costs before;
3. Navigate, as the management party, did not issue any prompt or notification about the inspection failure or process problem before the project ended.

Therefore, the costs I bear during the rework, such as moving out, storage, temporary rental, and life disturbance, belong to the secondary damage caused by the common negligence of the contractor and HOA management party, not spontaneous individual behavior or the result within the control of the residents.

4. The HO6 (residential private property insurance) is essentially used to protect internal property losses such as furniture, appliances, personal belongings, etc. It has never been designed to compensate for external losses caused by structural rework, construction errors, or process skipping due to management or contractor reasons, such as forced move-out.

5. If HOA attempts to shift the management failure damage responsibility to the HO6 policy, it is a confusion of insurance responsibility boundaries, which is not based on legal basis.

6. Even if the HOA main policy has a disclaimer in the insurance agreement, it cannot be used as a basis for refusing to compensate residents' reasonable compensation.

The correct approach should be: HOA should first pay for residents' directly affected costs, and then seek subsequent compensation from the responsible contractor or insurer.

If HOA both participates in signing, approving construction, and paying costs, and then refuses to bear the aftermath responsibilities, this management method not only fails to fulfill its governance responsibilities, but also violates the public governance logic of the organization.

Finally, we must point out: If HOA insists on treating the construction loss as "residents' self-care" problem, it will seriously destroy the HOA's legitimacy and legal legitimacy as a community governance organization; this will convey extremely dangerous information: when HOA decision fails, the final risk and cost always falls on the ordinary residents without control.

Therefore, we reiterate: The current loss does not belong to the HO6 policy protection scope, belongs to construction violation and supervision失控所导致的直接后果; HOA as the responsible party should legally bear the rework related losses first, and then seek third-party liability; otherwise, we will retain the right to pursue HOA, Navigate, and related organizational legal and management responsibilities.

In the email from Navigate on May 9, 2025, the first time proposed "since the owner chose the contractor, the project supervision responsibility should be borne by the owner." Against this, we made the following legal and logical firm counterattack:

1. Contract prohibition:
The contract explicitly prohibits residents from interfering with construction, arranging processes, or making payments; this is a legal prohibition, not a vague space. The contract stipulates that the HOA is the sole payer and has no control or decision-making authority.

2. Responsibility subject:
The HOA is the sole payer and supervisor, and its agent Navigate is the entrusted executor. During the execution process, the contractor's compliance, permit application, and time table verification, etc., should be controlled by the payer and its agent.

3. We have never been granted or notified with supervision obligations:
Before the project started, during the construction, even when applying for final payment, I never received any written notification or meeting record indicating that I should assume the process supervision role;
Navigate has never proactively informed "which link should I submit, confirm, or accept," I have always been in a passive cooperation state.

4. Subsequent blame intention:
Navigate, as the HOA management company, holds all construction files, progress records, and payment permissions, but in the case of project failure, it attributes the responsibility to a normal owner without contract power and no construction management ability, which is completely irrational;
According to its logic, all HOA communities recommended by residents in the future should bear project quality consequences, which will lead to the HOA management mechanism becoming a formality, contradicting the basic community governance principles.

5. Responsibility transfer motive:
We reasonably suspect that Navigate, in the case of payment process premature and inspection incomplete, is trying to create a "supervision vacuum" logic to avoid legal and financial responsibilities.

Therefore, we hereby declare:
We firmly do not accept Navigate's subsequent supervision responsibility claim and regard such statements as illegal misleading statements and responsibility transfer behavior.

We retain the right to pursue secondary damage consequences from misleading statements, including psychological harm, family conflict, and legal relationship confusion.

In the case processing, Navigate, as the HOA management agent, its inaccurate or misleading email content, long-term lack of clear response mechanism, and wrong responsibility attribution to residents, not only caused the project problem itself, but also brought adverse impacts on my family's internal relationship, emotional state, and life stability.

1. Misleading information caused family internal responsibility dispute
Navigate repeatedly used ambiguous wording in emails, implying "contractor is my choice," "supervision responsibility should be borne by residents," "move-out obstructs rework," etc.; these information made my family misunderstand my role in recommending the contractor, questioning whether I should bear the main responsibility for the current predicament;

Family internal caused multiple arguments, affected family atmosphere, and family atmosphere became tense.

2. Project uncertainty caused continuous psychological anxiety
Navigate has never provided a rework specific time table, nor coordinated basic accommodation measures between the contractor and residents;
Since we cannot confirm the move-out time and project cycle, my family and I were forced to maintain a "potentially move-out" living state for a long time, disrupting our living plan, work arrangement, and children's education;
In the past few months, I often needed to independently handle sudden emails, ask for process, and comfort family emotions, both mentally and physically extremely tired.

3. Governance disorder constituted indirect harm to residents
HOA, as the organization governance party, did not take responsibility in the case of project failure and management failure, nor did it set up a clear residents support mechanism;
Navigate lacked positive response in information disclosure, hearing arrangement, compensation communication, etc., allowing the situation to continue to be frozen;
This governance neglect caused secondary emotional harm, trust breakdown, and life insecurity, though not directly monetary loss, but had a profound and lasting negative impact on my family.

We reiterate: This case is not just a construction failure, but a governance system failure.

Navigate and HOA not only need to face the rework cost itself, but also need to seriously face the problem of how to maintain residents' trust and life order after failure.

If such "indirect harm" is not taken seriously, any future project failure may trigger similar family level crisis, ultimately endangering the stability and cohesion of the entire community.

In Navigate's multiple emails, we noticed that HOA management tried to blur my role in this project and indirectly implied that we should bear some responsibility for the current predicament.

1. Recommend contractor does not constitute supervision or selection responsibility
We only proposed Wonda Builders LLC as a reference contractor when the originally designated contractor by the HOA failed to perform for a long time, out of the cooperative attitude of helping to move the project forward;
HOA and Navigate independently reviewed and decided to sign a formal tripartite agreement with this company, and the contract conclusion process and construction supervision chain had nothing to do with us;
Therefore, we do not bear any contract or legal responsibility for construction quality problems or permit process.

2. Contract explicitly prohibits residents from interfering with management
The contract stipulates that residents cannot directly interfere with construction, arrange processes, or make payments; Navigate has never issued any formal notification or task allocation regarding supervision or permit matters;
Any behavior that attempts to shift the supervision missing responsibility to us is without contract basis and against governance logic.

3. Occupancy behavior is reasonable, based on official confirmation
On August 2024, the contractor's email clearly stated "the project is substantially completed," Navigate also completed the final payment without objection;
We reasonably occupied based on the expression and payment behavior, fully in line with the principle of good faith trust;
If the construction does not meet the permit standard or there is a step skipping, it should be borne by the contractor and Navigate to control the delivery and progress.

4. Move-out preparation has been actively carried out, continuing to reside is a reasonable preventive measure
After Navigate's move-out request, we immediately coordinated life arrangements, did not obstruct or refuse rework;
However, due to the lack of clear direct cost responsibility between HOA and contractor,
We continued to reside in the absence of clear responsibility, to avoid additional loss before assigning responsibility, and was a legitimate and reasonable temporary rights protection measure;
We did not set any substantive obstacles, and always expressed our willingness to cooperate with the legitimate rework arrangement.

Overall position reiteration:
We are "non-control, non-delegate, non-supervision party" in this case, all behaviors are based on contract provisions, good faith trust, and cooperation principles;
Any behavior that attempts to shift the technical and management consequences of project failure to ordinary residents without decision-making power is a confusion of governance responsibility boundaries and escape,
We firmly do not accept, and retain all legal defense and rights protection paths.

I propose two paths, please HOA and its legal counsel carefully consider:

Option 1: HOA actively pursue breach of contractor
If HOA can seriously face the serious problems of the contractor, possible false completion statement, construction non-compliance, etc., and is willing to initiate a formal claim or other legal procedure against the contractor, we will actively cooperate and support the following:

1. Provide complete documents, evidence, timeline, and supporting materials;
2. Cooperate with hearing, statement, or investigation requirements;
3. Do not interfere with HOA's claim procedure or legal strategy selection.

However, we do not bear any costs or risks related to this legal action, including but not limited to lawyer fees, litigation costs, expert assessment costs, or administrative coordination expenses, nor do we participate as a joint plaintiff or funding party.
Meanwhile, since the rework has caused me reality and ongoing economic loss (including temporary housing, furniture storage, work arrangement interruption, etc.), I hereby clearly request:

HOA as the project signing party and supervision duty party, should immediately pay for and recover the reasonable direct expenses of this unit in the subsequent legal claim process to the relevant responsible party.

We understand that HOA may need to rely on insurance or contract channels for claim, but this type of claim behavior cannot constitute a reason for delaying or refusing to compensate residents.

The reason why I propose that the costs should be fully borne by HOA is mainly based on the following facts:

1. This project is led, initiated, and implemented by HOA, the contractor is self-signed by HOA, and residents are only the cooperating party;
2. The tripartite contract explicitly prohibits us from interfering with supervision, paying, and construction control, we do not have control rights, naturally should not bear responsibility;
3. The project failure, rework, and move-out losses are due to HOA's supervision omission and contractor operation error, the victims should not bear the cost of rights protection again;
4. If HOA fulfills its governance responsibilities and initiates claim, it should be seen as its internal repair mechanism for mistakes, not to shift responsibility or cost to non-decision-making party;
5. This also helps to restore HOA's governance reputation and establish an organizational attitude of responsibility for fairness and governance risk.

Option 2: If HOA does not act, we will initiate a joint claim against HOA and contractor
Legal liability chain has been formed;
Contractor construction violation, HOA management negligence, clear residents loss;
We will legally claim direct loss, mental pressure, and secondary damage caused by governance inefficiency.

Appendix: Preventive Right Declaration for Compensation Distribution
If HOA finally obtains compensation funds through legal action, we retain the legal right to request a reasonable part of the compensation for B2006 unit due to rework, including moving, storage, additional living costs, and psychological impact.

This declaration does not deny HOA trust, but is to avoid personal rights loss due to litigation technology or expression form.