session 2026-08-09: PENDING-129/130 filed → REVIEWED-113/114 placed; the V4 fixture was a 0-byte file

REVIEWED.md

@@ -1572,3 +1572,96 @@ classification. Size was "unmeasured, deliberately"; it is now bounded and still
 
 **If AUTHORIZED:** Tag with REVIEWED-112.
 
+## REVIEWED-113 — PENDING-129 — The pattern-finder's voice cross: attest what was not searched
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-09
+**Decision:** **(a) AUTHORIZED**, with three refinements: derive the states from the cross
+(in manifest?) × (probed by spec?) rather than the difference, so closing the fourth cell later
+is a line and not a rewrite; `not-in-corpus` is a top-level key per REVIEWED-47 §1a, not a
+parenthetical on the spread line; and carry REVIEWED-104's two strengths, so an absence that is
+environment cannot read as defect and become furniture.
+**Provenance:** steward, 2026-08-09, on the executor's PENDING-129. Placed after the fact —
+the ruling was relayed and built the same day, and `governance-drift-check.py` flagged the gap.
+
+**Ground.** Not a judgment call: the ratified three-outcome doctrine applied to a check whose
+subject can be absent, and the direction of the error — dropping a voice can only raise the
+apparent instantiation rate — puts it on the wrong side of Constitutional Constraint 4.
+
+**⚠ The fourth cell was mis-inferred in this ruling, and building it corrected the ruling.**
+The design gate reasoned the cell would collapse into `silence`, flagged that as inference
+rather than reading, and invited the check. Driven against the live corpus it raised
+`KeyError` — a crash in engine code, the class PENDING-126(c) closed suite-side only. The
+scope decision stands (the cell is representable and non-crashing; its reporting semantics
+stay unruled), but the record should show the correction ran executor→ruling, which the
+differently-biased-checkers doctrine predicts and is worth logging as an instance.
+
+**If AUTHORIZED:** ~~Proceed.~~ Already built at `6f6bac5` (fix + `tests/test_pattern_finder.py`,
+22 checks, witnessed red behaviourally; fleet 8 suites / 263 checks). Tag any follow-on with
+REVIEWED-113.
+
+## REVIEWED-114 — PENDING-130 — V4's designated adversarial fixture is an empty file, and a Stage-1 completion criterion has no subject
+**Date:** 2026-08-09
+**Decision:** AUTHORIZED — option (a), ordered behind PENDING-129, with five conditions. The item does NOT close on this ruling.
+
+**Notes:** The recommendation is right and the item's own condition is the ruling. (b) and (c) both
+concede that V4 ships without an adversarial fixture in order to fix a documentation defect, and the
+re-run demonstrably has the property V4 needs — 36 citations, zero abstentions, two passages grounding
+two primitives each. What (a) does not have, and cannot acquire from the executor, is an answer key.
+Everything below protects that one step, because it is the only step in the item with no mechanical
+control and the item says so.
+
+Recorded first, because it bears on condition 1: `ec6fa0b` (studium-engine, local, unpushed) is
+scoped 'preservation only'. Read from the branch state alone it looks like (a) executed ahead of this
+ruling; read from the commit subject it is the correct act — an artifact protected against the loss
+this item exists to record. The distinction is the whole of it, and the executor made it explicitly.
+
+1. CONDITION — ORDER: PENDING-129 lands first, and the fixture is the POST-fix re-run. The fixture's
+   grounding content is invariant under 129: 129's own two-directional check REQUIRES the four
+   manifested voices' numbers to be byte-identical, so the 36 citations, the zero abstentions and the
+   two double-groundings survive the fix unchanged. Only the spread line moves. Committing the pre-fix
+   run as the fixture would place a SECOND and unrelated falsehood — a denominator inflated by the
+   silently dropped voice — inside an artifact preserved to teach V4 ONE falsehood class. A
+   differently-formed reader handed both has no way to know which they are being asked to mark, and
+   the contamination lands on the one step no control covers. Retain `ec6fa0b` as the pre-fix run: it
+   is now load-bearing for 129's byte-identity comparison, which is not what it was committed for.
+
+2. CONDITION — PROVENANCE NAMES THREE MOVING PARTS: spec path and hash, corpus/manifest state, and
+   ENGINE COMMIT. Option (a) named the first two. 129 moves the third, and an engine version omitted
+   from the header makes the August fixture unreproducible in precisely the manner that made the June
+   run unrecoverable.
+
+3. CONDITION — THE KEY IS MARKED AGAINST THE CORPUS, NOT AGAINST THE REPORT. This item's own
+   diagnosis is 'cited a derived label instead of the substrate' — a description of the artifact read
+   in place of the artifact, three times over, by an instruction whose entire content was 'protect
+   this artifact'. Marking the key by reading the rendered report repeats that shape inside the
+   remedy: the report's claim that its citations are verbatim and correctly located is the executor's
+   claim about them, and the key exists to be independent of the executor. The marking is done against
+   the passages at the cited locations. The executor states in the header whether the report carries
+   sufficient surrounding context for that, or whether the corpus must be open beside it.
+
+4. CONDITION — NO DOCUMENT CALLS IT A FIXTURE UNTIL THE MARKED KEY EXISTS as a separate dated file.
+   §2.3, criterion 1 and `CLAUDE.md` L61 may be corrected to name existing material; they may not
+   assert a fixture that is half-done. This item is the evidence that an assertion about an artifact
+   survives seven weeks and three currency passes without anyone opening the file. Asserting a
+   fixture before its key is marked rebuilds that gap under a fresh filename.
+
+5. CONDITION — 'RETRO-GATED' IS STRUCK FROM CRITERION 1, not repointed. Under (a) there is no
+   retro-gated run; the word encodes a provenance claim the August pass cannot satisfy. Repairing the
+   artifact reference while leaving the verb preserves the false claim in the criterion that was
+   unsatisfiable because of it.
+
+6. The jurist cannot discharge condition 3 in the steward's place. Raised here so it is not proposed
+   later as an efficiency: PENDING-124 Amendment 2 Q4 is ratified on exactly this point — jurist and
+   executor 'do not differ from each other in formation'. One party to this collaboration is
+   differently formed, and the key is theirs.
+
+7. The item's evidence figures were measured on the pre-fix run. After the re-run under condition 1
+   they cite a superseded output and must be restated in PENDING-130 — not re-argued, restated.
+   Flagged because this is the class of cost that goes unrecorded.
+
+**If AUTHORIZED:** Hold until PENDING-129 lands. Then re-run the unmodified June spec, commit the
+output with the three-part provenance header, and correct §2.3, criterion 1, `docs/tool-evolution-log.md`
+and `CLAUDE.md` L61 to name existing material without the word 'retro-gated' and without the word
+'fixture'. Tag commits with REVIEWED-114. **The item remains OPEN and is not archived** until the
+steward's marked answer key exists as a dated file; only then may V4 be built against it and the
+fixture named as such.