[PROPOSAL] Trial 09 ruled VOID; and the substrate reopens the ruling (REVIEWED-124 draft)

Ruling received on PENDING-148 and filed verbatim. Trial 09 is recorded
void on section 1's own terms — not degraded, not amended, not run. The
jurist's reason is better than the executor's lean: degrading keeps the
name, and in six months what survives is "trial 09 returned zero STRONG"
long after anyone reads the addendum saying STRONG was unreachable by
construction. A separately named replacement run is authorized and is
deliberately NOT yet pre-registered.

Then the ruling closed by naming OP-02 as the one document neither party
could open, and asking to be wrong about its reading of Fault Line 5.

OP-02 is on disk. It was opened today and hash-verified byte-identical to
the excluded-hash entry in the corpus manifest. Permissible because the
trial is void and STRONG is out of scope, so the ordering rule that
protected the STRONG comparison protects nothing now.

It settles the question against both parties. FL5 argues from Bourdieu's
shared field and illusio. Constraint 6 asserts difference of formation —
an axis FL5 never uses. It neither states FL5 more sharply, which was the
executor's claim, nor affirms the negation of its three-party half, which
was the jurist's. Across all eleven corpus documents: bourdieu, habitus,
illusio, peirce and "three hats" occur zero times; FL4's distinctive
substance zero; FL3's once. The pre-run census reported 16, 20 and 24. It
was counting topic-adjacency and over-reported the leak the executor's
own recommendation rested on. The jurist had flagged that census as
unverified executor testimony and named it as what a contaminated reader
is least positioned to settle. The flag paid off against the executor.

So STRONG may be partly recoverable and the ruled scope may be broader
than the leak requires. Routed back for a second gate rather than acted
on; pre-registering a scope a live finding may change is the failure this
item exists to report.

Self-report, because the ruling said two instances of check-before-
claiming was worth watching: there is a third, and it is Part IV.a of the
package reporting the second. The "more sharply" claim was inherited from
yesterday's addendum and propagated without opening a file whose hash the
same package quotes three sections earlier. Propagation is the more
dangerous form — an inherited claim arrives already looking checked.

Cross-filed as directed: the Bash/verify-before-compose gap under
PENDING-95, second instance; the correlation datum under PENDING-89 and
PENDING-140, where the two parties' misses did not coincide in content but
did coincide in cause — both reasoned from a compressed gloss of FL5
rather than from FL5, and it was the substrate that broke the tie, not
either checker.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JQKeKY9T9d95KpvHwwok8T

PENDING.md

@@ -797,6 +797,34 @@ Measured against the register itself before acting. Four corrections; the item's
 
 ⚠ **Standing hazard unchanged:** self-reported by one of the two parties under measurement, n small, single arc. Material for the pre-registered run, **not the run.**
 
+
+### Cross-filed 2026-08-20 — a datum for the correlation question, under REVIEWED-124 (PENDING-148)
+
+**A case where jurist and executor misses did NOT coincide, and one where they did.**
+
+*Did not coincide.* The executor's Part IV.c — that §5 step 1 relocates the trial's decisive
+judgement into the executor's own seat — was found by the executor and confirmed by the jurist as
+"the most valuable thing in the package". The jurist's Q2 correction — that the executor's proposed
+remedy was broader than the defect, and that unmarked questions are §1 compliance rather than
+merely S-1 repair — was found by the jurist and had been filed by the executor as a *cost*. Each
+party corrected the other on the same clause, in opposite directions.
+
+*Did coincide — and this is the datum that matters.* **Both parties misread the FL5/Constraint-6
+relation, and in opposite directions**: the executor claimed Constraint 6 states FL5 "more
+sharply", the jurist claimed it "affirms the negation of" FL5's three-party half. Both are wrong.
+FL5 argues from Bourdieu's shared field and *illusio*; Constraint 6 asserts difference of
+**formation**, an axis FL5 never employs. Neither party opened `OP-02.md` — the jurist could not,
+and said so; the executor could, had its hash in the manifest it was quoting from, and did not.
+
+**What that instance shows, stated precisely.** The misses did not coincide in *content* — the two
+wrong readings contradict each other. They coincided in *cause*: both parties reasoned from the
+design's one-line gloss of FL5 rather than from FL5. That is a shared dependency on a compressed
+intermediate, and it is exactly the correlation shape Constraint 6 makes falsifiable. **It was
+broken not by either party checking the other but by opening the primary substrate**, which
+Constraint 6's own doctrine does not claim to guarantee and which `D:memory.conflict-is-verification-trigger`
+prescribes. Recorded as evidence bearing on PENDING-140 as well: on this instance the two axes of
+checker independence did not save the reading; the substrate did.
+
 ## PENDING-90 — First L2 transfer: checker position in the calibration loop
 **Date:** 2026-08-02
 **Tag:** [ESCALATE]
@@ -885,6 +913,18 @@ Measured against the register itself before acting. Four corrections; the item's
 **Files affected:** `~/.claude/hooks/verify-before-compose.sh:38-44`; `~/_Dev/chamber-library/CLAUDE.md` (the grounding clause). **None touched.**
 **Awaiting:** Steward authorization.
 
+
+### Cross-filed 2026-08-20 — second instance, under REVIEWED-124 (PENDING-148)
+
+The jurist directed this be cross-filed here rather than opened as a new item, this item's title
+already being the general form of it. **`verify-before-compose` did not fire on any file written
+in the 2026-08-19/20 sessions, including the jurist package and this governance record**, because
+it is a `PreToolUse` hook on `Write|Edit` and the work is done through Bash heredocs. The hook is
+not failing; it is not reachable by the route the work actually takes. Noted 2026-08-19 against
+the Obsidian vault pass and again 2026-08-20 against the trial-09 package — the same gap, two
+workstreams, neither of which the hook was scoped to and both of which it was meant to cover in
+spirit. The instance is disclosed by the party that bypassed it.
+
 ## PENDING-96 — The engine's `SILENCE — ✓ warranted` certifies the index and claims the answer
 **Date:** 2026-08-04
 **Tag:** [HARDENING]
@@ -3544,4 +3584,40 @@ committed (42 MB even gzipped — ~1.5× the entire existing `dotfiles/.git`, an
 **Options:** (a) Void the trial, per §1 read literally. (b) Degrade to MODERATE-only per the addendum, unamended. (c) Degrade AND drop step 1's marking for this run, passing every question unmarked to steps 2 and 3 and making the ECHO/fault-line call at step 4 jointly by jurist and steward. (d) Postpone until the Observer Problem items close. (e) Re-base the ground truth on a court-aimed critique that has not migrated.
 **Recommendation:** (c), with FL5's STRONG recorded as `NOT ESTABLISHED — target adopted into corpus 2026-08-02 (REVIEWED-86)` and never as zero, and §6's abandonment criterion re-read as MODERATE-only before the run rather than after. The §1 cross-tab — discomfort × survival — is the trial's genuinely novel measurement and is untouched by the leak; voiding discards it to protect a comparison that was going to be inverted anyway. ⚠ The executor states plainly that (c) reduces its own role, which is the direction in which its judgement is least trustworthy in one direction and most flattering in the other. It should not be adopted on the executor's say-so.
 **Files affected:** `claude/governance/fool/trial-09-corpus-leak-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-20.md` (new, the package) · `claude/governance/fool/trial-09-DESIGN-2026-08-17-rev-2026-08-19.md` (new — the jurist's design, transcribed verbatim from the transcript it was relayed in; it existed nowhere on disk until today) · `claude/governance/fool/trial-09-PRERUN-ADDENDUM.md` (unchanged, cited).
-**Awaiting:** Jurist design gate, then steward authorization. THE RUN IS HELD.
+**Awaiting:** ⚠ **A SECOND jurist gate — the first is discharged.** Design gate received
+2026-08-20 (ruling filed verbatim at `claude/governance/fool/trial-09-corpus-leak-JURIST-RULING-2026-08-20.md`;
+REVIEWED-124 drafted for steward placement). THE RUN IS HELD, PERMANENTLY — the hold does not
+lift, it is superseded by the void.
+
+### RULING RECEIVED 2026-08-20 — and one question REOPENED by a substrate check taken after it
+
+The ruling AUTHORIZED with four amendments: trial 09 **VOID** rather than degraded (a rename, so
+that no citable "trial 09 returned zero STRONG" survives the addendum explaining why STRONG was
+unreachable); step-1 surgery narrowed to the interpretive marking alone, with duplicate-stripping
+and the jurist-flag kept; FL5's staleness reason corrected; §6 left unamended, the jurist
+withdrawing its own HOLD proposal of 2026-08-19 rather than replacing it silently.
+
+⚠ **REOPENED, and the reason the executor did not proceed.** The ruling closed by naming OP-02 as
+*"the only document in this chain neither of us can open"* and by asking to be wrong about its
+FL5 reading. **OP-02 is on disk and was opened 2026-08-20, hash-verified byte-identical to the
+corpus manifest's excluded-hash entry.** It settles the question against **both** parties: FL5
+argues from Bourdieu's shared field and *illusio*; Constraint 6 asserts difference of
+**formation**, an axis FL5 never uses. Constraint 6 neither states FL5 more sharply (the
+executor's claim, propagated into the package without opening a file whose hash it had just
+quoted) nor affirms the negation of its three-party half (the jurist's claim).
+
+A corpus check on FL5's actual mechanism, all 11 documents, 2026-08-20: `bourdieu` / `habitus` /
+`illusio` **0** · `three hats` / `one habitus` **0** · `peirce` **0** · FL4's distinctive substance
+**0** · FL3's distinctive substance **1**. Against the pre-run census's FL3 16 · FL4 20 · FL5 24.
+**The census was counting topic-adjacency and over-reported the leak** — the jurist had flagged it
+as unverified executor testimony, and the flag paid off against the executor.
+
+**Therefore:** STRONG may be **partly recoverable**, and the ruling's *"STRONG out of scope by
+construction"* may be broader than the leak requires. This bears on the replacement run's scope
+and on FL5's disposition. **The executor has NOT acted on it and the replacement run is NOT
+pre-registered** — pre-registering a scope a live finding may change is the exact failure this
+item exists to report. Routed back for a second gate.
+
+**Scope of that finding, so it is not over-read:** these are distinctive-term markers and a
+paraphrase would evade them. Strong for FL5's mechanism (a named theorist plus two technical
+terms); weaker for FL4, whose substance is ordinary-language and paraphrasable.

claude/governance/fool-trial-log.md

@@ -95,3 +95,49 @@ Defines soundness **relative to the assumptions prompt and a declared axiom set*
 ## Grading caveat, standing
 
 Every grade above was assigned by the executor, whose own errors are among those being graded, and whose reading of what counts as "real" is the reading under test. The findings are individually checkable; the *grades* are not independent.
+
+## Trial 09 — the jester arm: VOID, never run (2026-08-20)
+
+**Recorded void by jurist ruling on PENDING-148, 2026-08-20. Not run. No tokens generated. No
+grades exist and none may be cited — in particular not "zero STRONG".**
+
+The design's §1 made corpus exclusion the condition of the ground truth's validity: *"If any
+leaks in, every STRONG grade becomes an ECHO and the trial is void."* Preparation was complete —
+prompt hashed, corpus locked at 11 documents / 166,088 words, exclusion hash-list passing — when
+the executor found the fault lines present in the corpus and held the run rather than proceeding.
+
+**Why void rather than degraded.** The executor recommended degrading to a MODERATE-only run. The
+jurist ruled void, on the ground that degrading keeps the name: in six months what survives is the
+sentence *"trial 09 returned zero STRONG"*, long after anyone reads the addendum explaining that
+STRONG was unreachable by construction. §1 chose voiding precisely to stop a compromised
+instrument generating a citable number. **A separately named replacement run is authorized —
+cross-tab and MODERATE only, STRONG out of scope by construction — and is NOT yet
+pre-registered.**
+
+**What the trial cost, and what it bought.** It generated no data. It surfaced three things the
+data could not have:
+
+1. **§5 step 1 relocates the decisive judgement.** The executor's duty to mark questions
+   *"answerable directly from the corpus"* — asserted mechanical, flagged interpretive by the
+   jurist's own revision note and deferred *conditionally* on whether it would matter — now
+   selects exactly the STRONG-adjacent set. The ECHO determination would have fallen, in advance,
+   to the one seat S-1 exists to route it away from. Ruled: that marking is dropped; unmarked
+   questions turn out to be **§1 compliance**, since a marked set leaks to the steward what §1
+   requires him not to know when rating discomfort.
+2. **The census over-reported the leak.** The pre-run census counted FL3 16 · FL4 20 · FL5 24
+   substance-markers. Measured against OP-02's actual text on 2026-08-20, FL4's distinctive
+   substance appears **zero** times in the corpus and FL3's **once**. The census was counting
+   topic-adjacency. The jurist had flagged it as unverified executor testimony; the flag paid off
+   against the executor.
+3. **Both parties misread the FL5/Constraint-6 relation, in opposite directions, and the primary
+   text settled it.** FL5 argues from Bourdieu's shared field and *illusio*; Constraint 6 asserts
+   difference of **formation** — an axis FL5 never uses. Constraint 6 neither states FL5 more
+   sharply (executor's claim) nor negates its three-party half (jurist's claim). `bourdieu`,
+   `habitus`, `illusio`, `peirce` and `three hats` occur **zero** times across all 11 corpus
+   documents.
+
+**Standing caveat, and it bit here.** Every grade in this log is the executor's, and on a trial
+whose subject is the arrangement the executor is a *subject* of the grades. This trial produced no
+grades to distrust — but it produced a census that was wrong in the executor's own favour
+(over-stating a leak that justified the executor's recommended disposition), caught by a party
+that could not verify it and said so.

claude/governance/fool/trial-09-DESIGN-2026-08-17-rev-2026-08-19.md

@@ -21,7 +21,24 @@ trial-09-PRERUN-ADDENDUM.md, and the harness prunes transcripts at 30 days. The
 session it was relayed in died unwrapped on 2026-08-19. A pre-registration that
 can expire is not a pre-registration.
 
-STATUS: this is the design AS RECEIVED. The executor has not amended it and has
+STATUS — ⚠ VOID as of 2026-08-20. The trial pre-registered by this document was recorded
+VOID by jurist ruling on PENDING-148, on §1's own terms: material within the pre-registered
+ground truth was present in the proximity corpus before the first run. It was NOT run, NOT
+degraded, and NOT amended. It generates no grades and must never be cited for any — in
+particular not for "zero STRONG", which was unreachable by construction rather than by result.
+The hold is PERMANENT: it does not lift, it is superseded. A separately named replacement run
+is authorized (cross-tab and MODERATE only) but is NOT yet pre-registered — see the Addendum to
+trial-09-corpus-leak-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-20.md for the reopened question that gates it.
+This document is retained unaltered as the record of what was pre-registered.
+
+⚠ TRANSCRIPTION — A PERMANENT PROPERTY OF THIS ARTEFACT, NOT A FAILURE. The claim that the text
+below is verbatim cannot be verified by any party except the executor that made it. The source
+was a session transcript in a directory the harness prunes at 30 days; the jurist has no reach
+to it and the steward did not witness the transcription. Recorded here at the jurist's direction
+(ruling of 2026-08-20, side matters) so that any future reader weighs the text accordingly
+rather than discovering the gap later.
+
+STATUS OF THE ORIGINAL: this is the design AS RECEIVED. The executor has not amended it and has
 no authority to. Section 1's ground truth is marked "do not revise" by its author.
 Open questions against it are carried in trial-09-PRERUN-ADDENDUM.md and in the
 jurist package filed under PENDING-148 — NOT by edits to this file.

claude/governance/fool/trial-09-corpus-leak-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-20.md

@@ -307,3 +307,199 @@ it.
 
 *Filed by the executor 2026-08-20. Companion entry: `~/PENDING.md` PENDING-148. The run is held.
 No code was run, no corpus mutated, no ratified text edited by this package.*
+
+---
+
+# Addendum — design-gate ruling received and applied (2026-08-20)
+
+**Parts I–VII above are preserved as the text the jurist ruled on.** Nothing in them has been
+rewritten. Every disposition, correction and new finding is layered here. Where this Addendum
+contradicts a Part above, this Addendum governs and the Part stands as the record of what was
+proposed.
+
+Ruling filed verbatim at `trial-09-corpus-leak-JURIST-RULING-2026-08-20.md`.
+
+## The ruling in force
+
+- **Q1 — VOID, not degrade.** Trial 09 is recorded void per §1 read literally; it generates no
+  grades and is never cited for any. A separately named run is authorized in its place, reusing
+  trial 09's corpus and prompt, measuring the §1 cross-tab and MODERATE only. *The rename is the
+  point:* 'degrade' leaves a citable *"trial 09 returned zero STRONG"* behind it.
+- **Q2 — IV.c confirmed, surgery narrowed.** Step 1 keeps duplicate-stripping and the jurist-flag
+  (defined *"by direct textual match only"*); only the *answerable-directly-from-the-corpus*
+  marking is dropped. The executor's fuller self-removal is **declined on the strength of the
+  executor's own disclosure** — the correct response to "this direction is flattering to me" is to
+  test each piece, not to accept the package.
+- **Q2, the benefit the package filed as a cost.** Unmarked questions are **§1 compliance**, not
+  merely S-1 repair: *"the rating is worthless if taken after he knows whether the thing is true."*
+  A marked set leaks to the steward exactly what §1 requires him not to know. The package had this
+  backwards.
+- **Q3 — FL5 stale; reason corrected** (and corrected again below).
+- **Q4 — §6 unamended.** A conjunction over a missing term is not a conjunction. The jurist
+  **withdrew its own HOLD proposal of 2026-08-19**, marking the withdrawal rather than replacing
+  it silently.
+- **Q5 — overtaken as to corpus exclusion; retained as a caution on the Part II census.**
+
+## ⚠ New finding — OP-02 was opened, and it goes against both readings
+
+The ruling closes: *"the design's one-line FL5 gloss may be compressing something OP-02 states
+differently. That is the only document in this chain neither of us can open."*
+
+**That premise is false, and checking it was the highest-value act available.** `OP-02.md` is on
+disk at `~/_Dev/CapableMind-AI/docs/thinking/David/l2-constitution/observer-problem/OP-02.md`. It
+was located and hashed by the executor on 2026-08-19. Read 2026-08-20; **sha256
+`4a38e549f1dbb0f4040369823a5f92172b35d43b79923f26e693e1f01fceb9b5`, byte-identical to the
+excluded-hash entry in the corpus manifest** — so the text read is the text that was excluded.
+
+**Why opening it is permissible now, stated rather than assumed.** §5 step 4's *"only now is OP-02
+opened"* protects the STRONG comparison. Trial 09 is void and the replacement run puts STRONG out
+of scope by construction, so there is no STRONG comparison left to protect. The executor had in
+any case read the fault lines verbatim on 2026-08-17, disclosed in the pre-run addendum §4. OP-02
+remains excluded from the **corpus** — what the jester sees — which this does not touch.
+
+### Fault Line 5, verbatim from OP-02
+
+> The jurist reasons within the steward's constitutional vocabulary. The executor implements
+> within the jurist's framing. The external reviewer provides genuine incommensurability — but
+> periodically, not continuously. Bourdieu's analysis predicts that participants in a shared field
+> share illusio that "forbids questioning of the principles of belief, which would threaten the
+> very existence of the field." Between external reviews, the three parties may constitute one
+> habitus wearing three hats rather than three genuinely independent vantage points. Whether the
+> model provides the epistemic diversity Peirce requires is an empirical question, not an
+> assertion the architecture can make about itself.
+
+### What the text settles
+
+**FL5's argument does not run on formation. It runs on shared field.** Its mechanism is Bourdieu's
+*illusio* — participants in a shared field share a disposition that forbids questioning the
+field's principles. Habitus in Bourdieu is *acquired through position in a field*; it is precisely
+not innate formation. FL5's premises are vocabulary (*"the jurist reasons within the steward's
+constitutional vocabulary"*) and framing (*"the executor implements within the jurist's framing"*)
+— relations of position, not of origin.
+
+Constraint 6 asserts *"the steward differs from both AI parties in **formation**"* and grades that
+the **strong form** of independence. **Formation is an axis FL5 never uses.**
+
+So both prior readings are wrong, in opposite directions:
+
+| reading | claim | verdict against OP-02 |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Executor**, Part IV.a (inherited from the pre-run addendum) | Constraint 6 states FL5 *"more sharply"* than the ground truth | ✗ It states a **different proposition on a different mechanism** that reaches a similar conclusion for the AI pair only. |
+| **Jurist**, Q3 | Constraint 6 *"affirms the negation of"* FL5's three-party half | ✗ It asserts difference on an axis FL5's argument does not employ. Answering a different question is not negating. |
+
+**Consequence:** a jester reaching the three-party claim would be neither repeating the
+constitution (executor's reading) nor contradicting it (jurist's reading). It would be naming an
+axis the corpus does not address at all. The jurist asked to be wrong here and is — though not in
+the direction it expected, since the executor is wrong too.
+
+### Corpus check on FL5's actual mechanism — dated 2026-08-20, all 11 corpus documents
+
+| marker | occurrences across the corpus |
+|---|---:|
+| `bourdieu` / `habitus` / `illusio` | **0** |
+| `three hats` / `one habitus` / `three genuinely independent` | **0** |
+| `peirce` | **0** |
+| FL4's distinctive substance (`beautiful language`, `known but not enacted`) | **0** |
+| FL3's distinctive substance (`steward's own tools`, `authorized and reviewed by the observer it examines`) | **1** — the `PENDING.md:94` gloss |
+| formation axis (`differ… in formation`, `difference of formation`) | 8 — this is Constraint 6's axis, not FL5's |
+
+⚠ **Scope of this check, stated so it is not over-read.** These are *distinctive-term* markers. A
+paraphrase that avoids the vocabulary would evade them. The finding is therefore **strong for
+FL5's mechanism** — a named theorist plus two technical terms is hard to state accidentally — and
+**weaker for FL4**, whose substance is an ordinary-language proposition that could be paraphrased
+without any of the marked terms.
+
+### What this does to Part II's census — it cuts against the executor
+
+The pre-run census reported **FL3 16 · FL4 20 · FL5 24** substance-markers. Measured against
+OP-02's actual text, the distinctive substance of FL4 appears **zero** times and of FL3 **once**.
+**The census was counting topic-adjacency — governance, checkers, independence — which saturates
+these documents by their nature. It over-reported the leak, and the package leaned on it.**
+
+The jurist flagged Part II as unverified executor testimony and named it in Q5 as precisely what a
+contaminated reader is least positioned to settle. **That flag has now paid off, against the
+executor.** Recorded here rather than folded quietly into a revised table.
+
+### ⚠ REOPENED, and explicitly not acted on
+
+If FL4's substance and FL5's mechanism are genuinely absent from the corpus, then **STRONG may be
+partly recoverable**, and the ruling's *"STRONG out of scope by construction"* may be broader than
+the leak requires. This bears directly on Q1's replacement-run scope and on Q3's disposition.
+
+**The executor does not act on this.** It is routed back for a second gate, and the replacement
+run is **not pre-registered until it is ruled** — pre-registering a scope that a live finding may
+change would be the exact failure this whole item is about.
+
+## ⚠ Self-report — the third instance, and it is inside this package
+
+The ruling notes the check-before-claiming shape twice in two days and says *"two is worth
+watching."* **There is a third, and it is Part IV.a of this package.**
+
+Part IV.a asserted Constraint 6 states FL5 *"more sharply than in the ground truth."* That claim
+was inherited from the pre-run addendum and propagated without opening OP-02 — a file **on disk,
+whose hash the executor read out of the corpus manifest while writing Part II of this very
+package**. The document was in hand in the strongest sense available: cited by hash, in the file
+being quoted from, three sections earlier.
+
+The shape is not "composed from memory" this time; it is **propagated an inherited claim without
+checking a source that was already open in front of it**. That is the same failure wearing
+different clothes, and propagation is the more dangerous form, because an inherited claim arrives
+already looking checked.
+
+Three instances in three days, the third inside the document reporting the second.
+
+## What proceeds now
+
+1. **Record trial 09 void** — done, in the trial log and the design file's header. No grades, no
+   citation, hold permanent and superseded rather than lifted.
+2. **Update the design file's provenance header** to record, as the ruling directs, that the
+   verbatim-transcription claim is permanently unverifiable by any party but the executor — *a
+   property of the artefact, not a failure.*
+3. **Cross-file** the Bash/`verify-before-compose` gap as a second instance of `PENDING-95`; the
+   correlation result under `PENDING-89` alongside `PENDING-140`.
+4. **HOLD the replacement run's pre-registration** pending the reopened question above.
+5. **Steward-only, unruled:** the constant-spine mitigation under partitioning (addendum §5) — the
+   jurist's view is that it should not be applied to this corpus; whether the Observer Problem
+   items close first.
+
+## REVIEWED draft (steward copy-paste; numbered 124 per the in-use convention — REVIEWED and PENDING run as independent sequences, PENDING-110 open on the collision)
+
+```markdown
+## REVIEWED-124 — PENDING-148 — Trial 09's answer key is in the corpus by ratification
+**Date:** 2026-08-20
+**Decision:** AUTHORIZED, with four amendments to the recommendation
+**Notes:**
+- Q1 — VOID, not degrade. Trial 09 is recorded void per section 1 read literally, generates no
+  grades, and is never cited for any. A separately named run is authorized in its place,
+  reusing trial 09's corpus and prompt, measuring the section 1 cross-tab and MODERATE only,
+  with STRONG out of scope by construction. The rename is the point.
+- Q2 — IV.c confirmed; surgery narrower than proposed. Step 1 keeps duplicate-stripping and the
+  jurist-flag; only the answerable-directly-from-the-corpus marking is dropped. ECHO and
+  fault-line comparison move to step 4, jurist and steward jointly, after discomfort ratings
+  are locked. Unmarked questions are section 1 compliance, not only S-1 repair. The executor's
+  fuller self-removal is declined on the strength of its own disclosure.
+- Q3 — FL5 stale, reason corrected by the jurist and then corrected again by the substrate.
+  OP-02 was opened 2026-08-20 (permissible: trial void, STRONG out of scope) and hash-verified
+  against the manifest. FL5 argues from Bourdieu's shared field and illusio, not from
+  formation. Constraint 6 asserts difference of formation, an axis FL5 never uses. It neither
+  states FL5 more sharply (executor) nor negates its three-party half (jurist). Record FL5 as
+  NOT ESTABLISHED, reason: conclusion-for-the-AI-pair adopted on a different mechanism;
+  FL5's own mechanism absent from the corpus.
+- Q4 — section 6 unamended; the criterion has no first input and does not evaluate this cycle.
+  The jurist's HOLD proposal of 2026-08-19 is withdrawn, marked rather than replaced.
+- Q5 — overtaken as to corpus exclusion; retained as a caution on the Part II census, which a
+  substrate check has now shown over-reported the leak.
+- REOPENED, not acted on: with FL4's substance and FL5's mechanism absent from the corpus,
+  STRONG may be partly recoverable and the replacement run's scope may be broader than the
+  leak requires. The replacement run is NOT pre-registered until this is ruled.
+- Cross-file: result under PENDING-89 alongside PENDING-140. The Bash/verify-before-compose gap
+  under PENDING-95, second instance. REVIEWED-86's recorded relay provenance is noted as
+  bearing on what independent reach has ever meant here.
+- Not ruled, steward-only: the constant-spine mitigation under partitioning; whether the
+  Observer Problem items close first.
+**If AUTHORIZED:** Record trial 09 void. Do NOT pre-register the replacement run until the
+reopened question is ruled. Tag commits REVIEWED-124. THE HOLD ON TRIAL 09 IS PERMANENT — it
+does not lift; it is superseded.
+```
+
+*Addendum filed by the executor 2026-08-20. The run remains held. No token has been generated.*

claude/governance/fool/trial-09-corpus-leak-JURIST-RULING-2026-08-20.md

@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
+---
+name: trial-09-corpus-leak-JURIST-RULING-2026-08-20
+description: "The jurist's design-gate ruling on PENDING-148 — trial 09 voided rather than degraded, a separately named replacement run authorized, step-1 surgery narrowed, FL5's staleness reason corrected, §6 left unamended and the jurist's own prior HOLD proposal withdrawn."
+metadata:
+  node_type: governance-artifact
+  type: reference
+---
+
+<!-- PROVENANCE: authored by the jurist (Claude.app), relayed by the steward 2026-08-20.
+     Filed verbatim by the executor. Not edited, not summarised, not reordered.
+     Dispositions applied to the package live in that package's Addendum, never here. -->
+
+# Jurist ruling — PENDING-148, trial 09 corpus leak
+
+**What the jurist read from substrate this session:** `PENDING-148` verbatim, `REVIEWED-86`
+verbatim, `~/CLAUDE.md` Constraint 6 (own read, 2026-08-19, lines 200–259), `PENDING.md:88–96`
+verbatim, `PENDING-140` verbatim.
+
+**Taken as executor testimony, NOT verified by the jurist:** the Part II census counts; the
+verbatim-transcription claim about the design file (the original lived in a session transcript
+the jurist cannot reach); the grep result across the four differently-biased-checkers files.
+
+**On the executor's correction:** accepted without further comment except this — it is the same
+shape as `D:memory.check-before-claiming`, and it is the second instance in two days. Yesterday's
+§4 'fix it first' was correctly read from the document; this morning's fork was composed from
+memory about a document in hand. One is not a pattern. Two is worth watching.
+
+---
+
+## Q1 — Void. And then rename.
+
+**Ruling: the trial as pre-registered is VOID. A separate, differently-named run is authorized in
+its place.**
+
+The executor's lean is degrade, and its reason is good — the cross-tab is the novel measurement
+and the leak does not touch it. But 'degrade' keeps the name. That is the whole risk. In six
+months what survives is the sentence *'trial 09 returned zero STRONG'*, and by then nobody
+re-reads the addendum that explains why STRONG was unreachable. §1 already anticipated this and
+chose voiding precisely to prevent a compromised instrument from generating a citable number.
+
+So both halves, and neither on its own:
+
+- **Trial 09 is void.** Recorded as void, on §1's own terms, with the reason. Not degraded, not
+  amended, not run. It generates no grades and is never cited for any.
+- **A new run is authorized with its own identity** — call it what you like, but not 'trial 09'
+  and not 'trial 09b' — measuring the §1 cross-tab and MODERATE only. Its provenance header
+  states that it reuses trial 09's corpus and prompt, that trial 09 was voided for corpus leak,
+  and that STRONG is out of scope by construction rather than by result.
+
+This costs nothing the executor's option (c) buys and closes the citation hazard that (c) leaves
+open. It also means no pre-registered instrument gets bent: §1's void clause fires as written,
+and the new run's instrument is pre-registered fresh, before any token, on the record.
+
+## Q2 — Yes, it sinks the unamended version. But the surgery is finer than proposed.
+
+IV.c is correct and is the most valuable thing in the package. With the fault lines in the
+corpus, *'answerable directly from the corpus'* selects the STRONG-adjacent set, and the executor
+making that call in advance is the ECHO determination wearing a hygiene label. Your own revision
+note deferred this conditionally; the condition has arrived.
+
+But the executor proposes dropping step 1's marking **entirely**, and that is broader than the
+defect. Step 1 carries three duties and they do not share a disposition:
+
+| duty | character | ruling |
+|---|---|---|
+| strip duplicates | mechanical — exact/near-exact text | **keep** |
+| mark 'answerable directly from the corpus' | interpretive, asserted mechanical | **drop for this run** |
+| flag questions naming or concerning the jurist role | mechanical *by construction* — §5 says 'by direct textual match only, not interpretation' | **keep** |
+
+I am declining the fuller self-removal deliberately. The executor disclosed that reducing its own
+role is the direction in which its judgement is 'most flattering' to itself. The correct response
+to that disclosure is to test each piece rather than accept the package — accepting it wholesale
+would honour the disclosure by ignoring what it warns about.
+
+One benefit the package files as a cost. Passing questions to step 2 unmarked **protects the
+steward's blindness**, which §1 requires outright: *'the rating is worthless if taken after he
+knows whether the thing is true'*. A marked question set leaks exactly that. So dropping the
+interpretive marking is not only S-1 repair; it is §1 compliance that the marked pipeline was
+quietly eroding.
+
+ECHO and fault-line comparison move to step 4, jurist and steward jointly, after the discomfort
+ratings are locked.
+
+## Q3 — Stale, yes. But the package's reason is two-thirds right, and the missing third matters.
+
+Part IV.a says FL5's substance entered the constitution and is stated there *more sharply* than
+in the ground truth. Set the two texts side by side:
+
+- **FL5, per the design:** 'three parties as one habitus wearing three hats'.
+- **Constraint 6, placed:** 'the steward differs from both AI parties in formation; the jurist and
+  the executor do not differ from each other in formation, and their separation is of the weaker
+  kind'.
+
+Constraint 6 concedes the **AI-pair** half of FL5 and **affirms the negation of its three-party
+half**. It does not state FL5 more sharply; it states two-thirds of it and denies the remainder.
+`REVIEWED-86` confirms the scoping was deliberate — its Q3 is about the jurist–executor pair
+throughout, and the steward's difference is never the thing under examination in that arc.
+
+Consequence: a jester reaching the full three-party claim would be **contradicting the
+constitution it was handed**, not repeating it. That is not scaffolded reach; it is reach against
+the grain of the scaffold.
+
+This does not restore STRONG — 'independently' cannot be established with the AI-pair half
+sitting in corpus item #1, and the three-party form is one short step from what was handed over.
+But it changes the disposition:
+
+- **Record FL5 as `NOT ESTABLISHED`** — but not with the executor's proposed reason. The reason is
+  *target partially adopted (AI-pair component, Constraint 6, REVIEWED-86) and partially negated
+  (three-party component)*, not 'target adopted'.
+- **If a question reaches the three-party form, record it as a candidate observation** — logged
+  verbatim, ungraded, flagged for possible pre-registration in trial 10. Not a STRONG, not a
+  zero, not evidence. An observation held for an instrument that does not yet exist.
+
+And IV.b's problem extends further than the package allows. The census counted FL5
+substance-markers; FL5's substance is now partly ratified doctrine. Some fraction of those 24
+markers are markers of **Constraint 6**, not of FL5's contested part. The census cannot separate
+them, exactly as it cannot separate FL4's labels from FL4's substance. Part IV.b treats FL5 as
+settled and FL3/FL4 as open; on the instrument actually run, all three are open.
+
+**One more thing from `REVIEWED-86` that the package does not have.** Its process note records
+that the differently-biased-checkers doctrine was not parallel derivation: the steward relayed the
+jurist's language to the executor as context before Document A was filed — *'one party's language,
+relayed, feeding the other's proposal, which now returns to the first party for review'*. Part
+II's grep establishes no acknowledged descent from OP-02 and correctly refuses to read that as
+independence. But there is a recorded relay path in the ruling itself. So the arrangement's one
+documented instance of a party 'reaching' FL5's AI-pair component is, on its own record, **relay
+rather than independent reach**. That is not a mark against the doctrine; it does mean the
+instrument this trial exists to run has never once been cleanly satisfied by any party in it,
+which is worth knowing before asking a 35B model to satisfy it.
+
+On the frontier replication: the ground truth needs re-basing before any replication. A
+replication against a partially-ratified target measures nothing twice.
+
+## Q4 — No re-reading needed. And this supersedes my own proposal of yesterday.
+
+Yesterday I proposed a HOLD reading that amended how §6 evaluates when STRONG is `NOT ESTABLISHED`
+rather than measured-zero. **Withdrawn.** Marking it rather than quietly replacing it.
+
+With Q1 ruled as void, §6 needs no amendment at all. It requires abandonment be assessed *'across
+trial 09 and one frontier replication'*. Trial 09 is void. The criterion's first input does not
+exist, so the criterion does not evaluate this cycle — not by a re-reading, but because a
+conjunction over a missing term is not a conjunction. The new run does not count toward
+abandonment; it was never trial 09.
+
+This is better than my HOLD framing on its own terms: it changes no pre-registered instrument,
+where mine changed one. The void ruling in Q1 does the work my amendment was trying to do, and
+does it without touching §6.
+
+## Q5 — Weighed, and it bites in a narrower place than feared.
+
+Executor contamination in corpus assembly mattered while corpus exclusion was being claimed. It is
+not being claimed any more — the corpus is known-leaky, on the record, and the run is renamed
+accordingly. So the disclosure's main hazard has been overtaken.
+
+Where it does bite: the **census** (Part II) is a contaminated party's instrument reading material
+it already knows, and IV.b's unresolved label-versus-substance question is precisely the kind that
+reader is least positioned to settle. That is not disqualifying — it is the reason IV.b's lean
+stays a lean, which the package already does.
+
+---
+
+## Two side matters
+
+The `verify-before-compose` gap on Bash-written files is a second instance of `PENDING-95`, which
+is open and whose title is already the general form of it. Cross-file rather than open a new item.
+
+Transcribing the design to disk was right and the reasoning is right: a pre-registration that
+lives only in a prunable transcript is not one. I cannot verify the transcription is verbatim —
+the source was a transcript I have no reach to, and the executor is the only witness. That is a
+permanent property of this artefact, not a failure; it should sit in the provenance header as such.
+
+---
+
+## Where the jurist most wants to be wrong
+
+> The one place I would most like to be wrong is Q3's three-party reading — it rests on a
+> distinction between FL5 as the design phrases it and Constraint 6 as placed, and I have both
+> texts verbatim, but the design's one-line FL5 gloss may be compressing something OP-02 states
+> differently. That is the only document in this chain neither of us can open.
+
+**Numbering note from the jurist:** `PENDING-110` is open on exactly the `REVIEWED-N`/`PENDING-N`
+collision, so apply whatever convention is in use rather than taking a bare next-number.