What concrete actions should institutions, funders, and researchers take?

The architectural diagnosis (Q-0001, Q-0002), cost analysis (Q-0003, Q-0004), and verification analysis (Q-0005) point toward a small number of high-leverage actions. Q-0008 asks the working group to specify them: who acts, what they do, on what timeline, and against what justification.

The paper proposes seven recommendations across three audiences:

• Institutions: architectural audit, deploy at least one Tier 3 node, integrate compliance evidence generation into deposit workflow.
• Funders: require verifiable evidence rather than self-reported plans; fund preservation through facilities-and-administrative cost recovery rather than project budgets.
• Researchers: maintain local clones and content-addressed copies as standard laboratory practice.
• Working group: publish reference deployments, audit templates, and cost models under open licensing.

Each recommendation is itself a Claim node addressing this Question. The Question stays open after the recommendations are enumerated because: (a) the recommendations are subject to revision as evidence accumulates, (b) other audiences not addressed in the paper (academic publishers, repository operators, journal editors, industry partners) may also have actions to take, and (c) operational details (specific protocols to deploy, exact audit-template fields, rate-negotiation language) are themselves contributable.

Counterclaims welcome — actions the paper recommends that do not survive scrutiny, or alternative actions that better serve the same goal, are first-class contributions.