diff --git a/PENDING.md b/PENDING.md
index 3b5f5b7..3a2d141 100644
--- a/PENDING.md
+++ b/PENDING.md
@@ -2317,6 +2317,36 @@ Censused by **mechanism** — driving real degraded states and observing the out
 
 **Files affected:** `~/_Dev/chamber-library/_curation/graduation-spec.yaml` (`layers:` L19 and its cross-reference to L20).
 
-**Awaiting:** Jurist design-gate, **jointly with PENDING-121's redraft**.
+**Awaiting:** ~~Jurist design-gate~~ → **DESIGN GATE PASSED on (a) 2026-08-08**; placement gate outstanding, jointly with PENDING-121's redraft.
+
+---
+
+### AMENDMENT 1 — 2026-08-08, gate passed; the coupling SPLIT; and two of the ruling's premises were already stale
+
+**§A — THE COUPLING IS TWO CLAIMS AND I CONFLATED THEM.** Ruled: *ruled together* — **yes**, the reasoning that carried Q6 revives (c) and neither is ruled without the other. *Landed in one commit* — **not unconditionally**. My §Coupling transmitted PENDING-121's blockage to an item blocked on nothing, **and the transmitted blockage was invisible in 128's own record**, which showed only `Awaiting: jurist design-gate`. The cost I cited — two supersessions of one block — is **cheap** here: `graduation-spec.yaml` is machine-data, where REVIEWED-53's lane-rule puts lane at change-class *because git history is the independent fallback*. PENDING-121 by contrast carries a **constitutional** requirement with a MINOR bump. ⚠ Correction posture (heuristic 4): one commit renaming two ratified keys makes reverting one require reverting both — fine when both are ready, not when one is held by a defect in another repo.
+
+**§B — ⚠ THE RULING'S DECISION RULE IS RESOLVED, AND IT FIRES THE FIRST BRANCH.** The rule: *one commit if PENDING-127 clears before either lands; 128 alone if not.* **PENDING-127 HAS CLEARED** — verified today: built `ccc4d6c`, R0 contract **v0.2** landed (§4 three-valued, L232), ruling **placed as REVIEWED-109**. The jurist's Stores list did not include PENDING-127 or REVIEWED-109, and PENDING-121 Amendment 3's *"blocked on a D-1 defect"* — which they read — **was written before 127 was built and is now stale**. ⇒ **ONE COMMIT**, which the ruling itself calls *"genuinely preferable"* on that branch: the block is rewritten once and the L19↔L20 cross-reference rebuilt in a single act.
+
+**§C — §5.1 IS ALSO DISCHARGED.** The ruling asks that PENDING-121's design-gate ruling be placed, noting it *"exists in the chamber `docs/` and nowhere in `~/REVIEWED.md`"*. **It is placed** — `REVIEWED-110`, out of sequence relative to 101–105 exactly as the ruling anticipates, and the entry says so.
+
+**§D — CONDITION (drafting), ACCEPTED — and I had missed it: THE WARNING'S TEXT MUST BE REWRITTEN, NOT KEPT.** I recommended keeping the warning and did not notice that **the rename changes what the warning is about**. L19 warns that *"manifest"* names two engine objects; after `voice_manifest` → `voice_personification` the chamber side no longer carries that word, so the warning as written would describe a collision that no longer exists **at the site where it is printed** — *a stale safeguard, arriving through a change made to improve clarity*. **Preserving a safeguard means preserving its FUNCTION, not its bytes.** Draft for the placement gate, both grains:
+
+```yaml
+  voice_personification: "engine-side voice personification (role, semantic profile); authored,
+    not derived; carries NO source hash (spec §VI). ⚠ The engine's SOURCE manifest
+    (corpus/manifest.yaml) is a DIFFERENT object and DOES bind by hash — see canonical_binding
+    below; do not generalize 'engine-side = hash-free' from this entry. RENAMED from
+    `voice_manifest` 2026-08-08 (REVIEWED-53 option (c), deferred on occasion, taken up under
+    PENDING-128): a reader arriving from an older citation of `voice_manifest` has reached the
+    right entry."
+  # => the shared word "manifest" is RETIRED from this side rather than warned around. The block
+  #    comment is kept as the second reading grain REVIEWED-53 chose deliberately, and now says
+  #    what it needs to say after the rename: the hash-free/hash-binding distinction survives the
+  #    name change, and the old name resolves here.
+```
+
+**§E — §4 ACCEPTED, and it narrows my claim.** `graduation-spec.yaml` L50 carries **`voice` as a frontmatter `optional:` field** — verified. Both the old and new key contain it, so a search for `voice` cannot isolate the frontmatter field from the layer key, **before or after**. The rename is **neutral on that axis, not an improvement**. ⚠ And my *"ninth such case"* is **unverified testimony** — the collision log is unreachable by any `governance_read` key, carried no weight in the ruling, and should carry none here.
+
+**§F — What is now genuinely outstanding, and it is one thing.** The jurist has Amendment 3 §D's **description** of the redrafted IV.2 — *not its text* — and declines to rule from a description, *"the contamination shape this thread has now avoided three times."* **The redraft text must be relayed** (package Addendum 2, `~/_Dev/chamber-library/docs/engine-source-binding-surfaces-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-08.md`). Everything else on §5's list is discharged.
 
 ---