Without the foundation axiom, you have to specify what you mean by an ordinal, precisely because the various definitions are no longer equivalent:

• An ordinal is a transitive set well-ordered by $\in$.
• An ordinal is a hereditarily transitive set.
• An ordinal is a transitive set linearly ordered by $\in$.

For example, in a model of Aczel's AFA, there is a set $a$ which is equal to $\{a\}$, and such a set is hereditarily transitive, but it is not well-ordered by $\in$, since it has no $\in$-least member, and it is not a strict linear order, since it is reflexive. One may similarly construct sets in AFA that are transitive and linearly ordered by $\in$, but not well-ordered.

Similarly, the various equivalent formulations of well-foundedness become inequivalent without the axiom of choice. For example, the equivalence of the following two notions of well-foundedness is itself equivalent to the principle of dependent choice, a weak form of the axiom of choice:

• There is no infinite descending sequence
• Every subset has a minimal element.

Thus, without any AC, the notion of well-foundedness depends on how you express it.

Another ambiguity here is that the meaning of ZFC-powerset is ambiguous without elaboration, as Victoria Gitman, Thomas Johnstone and I proved in our paper What is the theory ZFC-powerset?. Also, the familiar equivalent formulations of the axiom of choice (such as WOP or choice functions, etc.) are no longer equivalent when power set is absent.

So it isn't clear exactly what your weak theory is.

2 added 2 characters in body

Without the foundation axiom, you have to specify what you mean by an ordinal, precisely because the various definitions are no longer equivalent:

• An ordinal is a transitive set well-ordered by $\in$.
• An ordinal is a hereditarily transitive set.
• An ordinal is a transitive set linearly ordered by $\in$.

For example, in a model of Aczel's AFA, there is a set $a$ which is equal to ${a}$, \{a\}$, and such a set is hereditarily transitive, but it is not well-ordered by$\in$, since it has no$\in$-least member, and it is not a strict linear order, since it is reflexive. One may similarly construct sets in AFA that are transitive and linearly ordered by$\in$, but not well-ordered. Similarly, the various equivalent formulations of well-foundedness become inequivalent without the axiom of choice. For example, the equivalence of the following two notions of well-foundedness is itself equivalent to the principle of dependent choice, a weak form of the axiom of choice: • There is no infinite descending sequence • Every subset has a minimal element. Thus, without any AC, the notion of well-foundedness depends on how you express it. 1 Without the foundation axiom, you have to specify what you mean by an ordinal, precisely because the various definitions are no longer equivalent: • An ordinal is a transitive set well-ordered by$\in$. • An ordinal is a hereditarily transitive set. • An ordinal is a transitive set linearly ordered by$\in$. For example, in a model of Aczel's AFA, there is a set$a$which is equal to${a}$, and such a set is hereditarily transitive, but it is not well-ordered by$\in$, since it has no$\in$-least member, and it is not a strict linear order, since it is reflexive. One may similarly construct sets in AFA that are transitive and linearly ordered by$\in\$, but not well-ordered.

Similarly, the various equivalent formulations of well-foundedness become inequivalent without the axiom of choice. For example, the equivalence of the following two notions of well-foundedness is itself equivalent to the principle of dependent choice, a weak form of the axiom of choice:

• There is no infinite descending sequence
• Every subset has a minimal element.

Thus, without any AC, the notion of well-foundedness depends on how you express it.