docs: remote-access decision question for founder [#626][#344]

questions-v3.md

@@ -14,4 +14,29 @@ purchase, Cloudron packaging session scope.
 
 ## Repo-local questions
 
-None open.
+### Q1 — HA remote access: proceed with the Cloudron pairing now? (decision needed before Friday)
+
+Adopted architecture (your 2026-09-01 ruling on #626): Cloudron HA = family
+frontend, pfv-bms = property brain, connected via HA Remote
+assistants/entities. Facts verified 2026-09-02 evening:
+
+- Both instances at 2026.8.3 (above the 2025.7 pairing floor), Cloudron HA
+  RUNNING, api token in ~/.creds/cloudron-ha.env, Tailscale path Cloudron ->
+  pfv-bms proven (Kuma already monitors LAN hosts from there).
+- Risk on the table: tsys-cloudron Postgres wobbles the same day (#681 500s).
+  If Cloudron degrades, FAMILY ACCESS degrades — pfv-bms itself is unaffected
+  either way.
+
+Options:
+
+- (A) Proceed with pairing now (recommended) — additive and reversible; pfv-bms
+      stays unexposed (Tailscale-only admin path); family accounts live on
+      Cloudron only. Remaining steps: mint pfv-bms long-lived token (yours, or
+      delegate to agent on approval), wire Cloudron-side integration, pair,
+      add family accounts.
+- (B) Hold until Cloudron stabilizes — nothing lost except timeline; Friday
+      family-access demo unlikely.
+- (C) Nabu Casa interim (~$6.5/mo) — fastest single-instance remote UI, but
+      does not serve the multi-property global-instance goal you ruled on.
+
+Answer inline (A/B/C + any conditions):