I read the full bundle (only file present in the source directory) and traced each requested focus area across every excerpted line.

## Verdict: no substantive findings

The amended revision 31 text is internally coherent on all eight areas; no contradictions, authority leaks, or missing lifecycle steps remain in the reviewed text.

Verification per focus area:

- **Local ADB listener threat** — The loopback race is stated honestly (line 1682: "Loopback binding alone does not authorize the ADB client… cannot exclude a malicious same-user process with the ADB host key"), matched to the threat model (line 69), mitigated by the single-admitted-connection/expiry binding (line 1682), gated pre-ship ("A stronger local client boundary or independent phone-side session authorization is a feasibility and UX gate before shipping"), and tested in acceptance (line 1700).
- **Session admission** — The two-policy choice, the same-user exposure disclosure, and the "select and test one" requirement are consistent across lines 25, 69, 1690, and 1700; it is recorded as an open user decision, not silently assumed (lines 3, 27).
- **Cloudflare ingress lifecycle** — Create/verify/rotate/disable/uninstall for the bridge's separate Access application and dedicated ingress are owned by the setup controller (lines 1193–1195), the endpoint/ingress relationship and LAN path are pinned (lines 1159, 1680), and rotation/revocation/idle behavior are in the feasibility gate and acceptance (lines 1698, 1700). No shared-secret-in-APK conflict (lines 1173 vs 1694).
- **Separate process and release boundaries** — Bridge endpoint runs under a distinct service account with no approval authority (lines 104, 1674, 1680); root service is never an ADB proxy (lines 100, 1674); bridge builds ship in the signed manifest under the unprivileged roles' placement/activation/minimum-build rules (line 1436).
- **Android self-update** — Self-update terminating the hosting foreground service is acknowledged, recovery UX is a recorded pending decision, and self-deploy/teardown/result reporting are acceptance items (lines 1676, 1700).
- **Congestion priority** — Approvals take precedence with honest interruption reporting and measured (not promised-zero) latency (lines 1674, 1700), consistent with the unbounded-buffering controls (line 1686).
- **Audit** — Metadata-only bridge start/stop/peer/stop-reason events (line 756) match the payload-exclusion rules (lines 1686, 1694) and the acceptance check (line 1700); rate-limit rules (lines 758–760) are untouched by the bridge additions.
- **Protocol evolution** — Bridge stream/framing/local-control versions are declared separately from approval wire versions, with exact tested sets required in manifests (lines 1558, 1563, 1568, 1571–1573) and versioned builds in the release manifest (line 1436).

Scope note: review is limited to the bundle's exact-text excerpts (lines 1–105, 752–760, 1150–1200, 1430–1445, 1555–1574, 1667–1702); omitted sections were treated as unknown per the bundle header. No files were edited.