[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

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.