Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N4606.

1. Edit [fs.class.file_status] as indicated:

   class file_status {
   public:
     // 27.10.11.1, constructors and destructor:
     file_status() noexcept : file_status(file_type::none) {}
     explicit file_status(file_type ft = file_type::none,
                          perms prms = perms::unknown) noexcept;
     […]
   };
   

2. Edit [fs.file_status.cons] as indicated:

   explicit file_status() noexcept;
   

   -1- Postconditions: type() == file_type::none and permissions() == perms::unknown.

[ 2016-11-12, Issaquah ]

Sat AM: Priority 0; move to Ready

[fs.class.file_status] depicts:

explicit file_status(file_type ft = file_type::none, perms prms = perms::unknown) noexcept;

while [fs.file_status.cons] describes two constructors:

explicit file_status() noexcept;
explicit file_status(file_type ft, perms prms = perms::unknown) noexcept;

It's also not clear why the default constructor needs to be explicit. Unlike tag types, there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to disallow constructing a file_status without naming the type.