[HARDENING] REVIEWED-127 ruling applied to PENDING-157/158; REVIEWED draft for placement

Jurist AUTHORIZED both, jointly. Applied the ruling's directives to the items themselves
rather than only recording that it happened.

PENDING-158: the luck paragraph is moved to the TOP at the jurist's direction. The
five-day pair surfaced because a false belief was stated aloud and turned out false —
an accident with no reproduction path, on a pair that had already survived five days, a
jurist ruling, and several sessions in that directory. It leads the item because it is
the clearest statement of what currently exists, which is nothing.

The opt-in limit is sharpened from "coverage is partial" to the real objection: an
opt-in marker is used by authors who remember to mark their claims, which is the same
population that would have caught the claim anyway. The mechanism is weakest exactly
where the failure is worst. All 57 candidates are unmarked. Adoption is the open
question, not expressibility.

Two conditions filed as §C. C1: STATE-CLAIM inherits 157's resolution state and does not
ship with a trigger alone, or the decay returns one layer along. C2: the 57 stays a grep
in the item's own text, standing condition, because the number will get quoted.

PENDING-157 now carries an obligation it lacked when filed: its resolved: half is no
longer a convenience for four deferrals, it is what stops the same decay reappearing in
state-claims. Build order recorded — together, not 158 first.

REVIEWED-127 is DRAFTED, not placed: ~/REVIEWED.md is steward's hand under Constitutional
Constraint 1, and a jurist sign-off does not lift that. Copy-paste-clean at
scratchpad/REVIEWED-127-draft.md.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J6hZXNYSxEfZseBGTni4sf

PENDING.md

@@ -5025,7 +5025,11 @@ This is the shape census 01 already found: **decay, not construction, is how gat
 
 **Files affected:** `scripts/governance-drift-check.py` (parser, due-ness, register-integrity lane, selftest); `PENDING.md` — the one existing `DISCHARGED-DECISION` block reverts to `DEFERRED-DECISION` with `resolved:` set, which is also the migration's own test case.
 
-**Awaiting:** Steward authorization. **Not urgent, and not open-ended:** the condition that makes it urgent is a second trigger coming due, and there are three that can.
+⚖ **AUTHORIZED 2026-08-25, jointly with PENDING-158** (jurist ruling; REVIEWED-127 drafted for steward placement).
+
+⚠ **This item now carries an obligation it did not have when filed.** PENDING-158's `STATE-CLAIM` **inherits whatever this item settles about `resolved:`**. So the resolution state is no longer a convenience for four deferrals — it is the schema half that stops the same decay reappearing one layer along in state-claims. **If this item ships without addressing `resolved:`, the jurist's ruling names that as "a third patch already visible from here."** Recommendation (1) with its two conditions stands and now also governs `STATE-CLAIM`.
+
+**Awaiting:** ~~Steward authorization.~~ **AUTHORIZED.** Steward to place REVIEWED-127. **Build together with PENDING-158, not before it** — the joint ruling's stated reason is that half a schema invites a third patch, and a third patch is how a vocabulary accretes instead of being designed.
 
 ---
 
@@ -5034,6 +5038,16 @@ This is the shape census 01 already found: **decay, not construction, is how gat
 **Tag:** [HARDENING]
 **Summary:** Governance documents routinely assert *"X has not happened"*; five such claims were found false in a single day, two of them stale for five days across a jurist ruling and multiple working sessions in the same directory. Every one was caught by a person opening the file for an unrelated reason. There is no mechanism that reads them.
 
+⚖ **AUTHORIZED 2026-08-25, jointly with PENDING-157** (jurist ruling; REVIEWED-127 drafted for steward placement). Two conditions, recorded at §C below.
+
+### ⚠ Read this first: the motivating evidence was recovered by luck, and that is the finding
+
+**The five-day pair surfaced because a false belief was stated aloud and turned out to be false.** The steward said trial 09 was unruled and its void unrecorded. It had been ruled the same day it was filed (REVIEWED-124) and the void *was* recorded — in one document out of three. The other two still said the run was *held*.
+
+**That is not a detection mechanism. It is an accident with no reproduction path.** The pair had already survived five days, a jurist ruling, and several working sessions inside that directory. Nothing read them; nothing was ever going to. Had the remark not been made, or had it been made accurately, the two documents would still say the run is waiting.
+
+⚠ **This paragraph is placed first at the jurist's direction, because it is the clearest available statement of what currently exists: nothing.** Everything below describes what to build; this describes the baseline it is measured against, and the baseline is luck.
+
 **The diagnosis changed under measurement, and that is the point of filing it.** The first reading was *negative-status lists are fragile* — a property of the lists, calling for care. That is wrong. The third instance occurred **inside the section that names the pattern**, written hours earlier, by an executor actively watching for it. Care does not fix this. The two five-day instances sat through a ruling and several sessions. **The property is not fragility. It is that nothing reads them.**
 
 **The five, all 2026-08-25:**
@@ -5078,7 +5092,7 @@ So: **60% coverage for near-zero new code; 100% for two trigger kinds of a few l
 ### ⚠ What it cannot do, stated before anyone hopes otherwise
 
 - **It cannot check claims that have no mechanical falsifier.** `manual` is the honest recording for those, exactly as in the deferral schema — and a claim whose author *cannot name what would falsify it* has learned something worth knowing about the claim.
-- **It only reads claims that opt in.** A status line with no block is as invisible as it is today. **This does not solve the class; it makes the class expressible.** Retrofitting is separate work and should not be smuggled in as though the schema did it.
+- **It only reads claims that opt in — and the limit is sharper than "coverage is partial."** ⚠ **An opt-in marker is caught by authors who remember to mark their claims, which is the same population that would have caught the claim anyway.** The mechanism is therefore weakest exactly where the failure is worst: the author who forgets the marker is the author who forgets the claim. **The 57 candidates are all unmarked.** So **adoption is the open question, not expressibility** — and an adoption figure, not a schema, is what would show this worked. Stated here at the jurist's direction rather than left to be discovered after shipping. Retrofitting is separate work and must not be smuggled in as though the schema did it.
 - **The 57 figure is a grep, not a census.** `grep -E` over the governance tree returns 57 candidate negative-state claims. They are **not classified** and it is unknown how many are currently false; most are probably correct past-tense statements. Reporting it as "57 stale claims" would be the proxy-census error this record already carries twice. What the number establishes is only that **the volume is past what eye-checking reliably covers**, which is itself the argument.
 
 **Files affected:** `scripts/governance-drift-check.py` (parser reuse, one new report line, two new trigger kinds, selftest); no governance document need change until a claim opts in.
@@ -5087,4 +5101,10 @@ So: **60% coverage for near-zero new code; 100% for two trigger kinds of a few l
 
 **Required controls, per the standing rule that an absence is not evidence until the instrument is shown able to detect presence:** a positive control that a state-claim whose falsifier has fired **is** reported; a negative control that one whose falsifier has not fired is **not**; and a control that `manual` is listed-but-never-fired rather than silently dropped.
 
-**Awaiting:** Steward authorization, jointly with PENDING-157.
+### §C · Conditions on the authorization
+
+**C1 — `STATE-CLAIM` inherits PENDING-157's resolution state; it does not ship with a trigger alone.** The 25th already demonstrated the gap: a trigger came due, was correctly discharged by hand-renaming the key, and would otherwise have reported COME DUE forever. **If `STATE-CLAIM` ships with the same shape, discharge is again a manual rename and the decay simply returns one layer along.** Whatever 157 settles about `resolved:`, this inherits — and ⚠ **if 157 does not address it, that is a third patch already visible from here**, which is the precise failure joint ruling exists to prevent.
+
+**C2 — the 57 is a grep and the item must keep saying so.** It is not a census, the candidates are unclassified, and it is unknown how many are currently false. ⚠ **Held as a standing condition because the number will get quoted**, and "57 stale claims" is the proxy-census error this record already carries twice today.
+
+**Awaiting:** ~~Steward authorization, jointly with PENDING-157.~~ **AUTHORIZED.** Steward to place REVIEWED-127; build proceeds under C1 and C2.