session 2026-08-02: Constraint 6 amendment verified; REVIEWED-85 FIX lane + batch 1; v1 Chamber archive evidence (ADDENDUM-1) + jurist ruling; wake-digest ID fix; PENDING-89 opened, -10/-86 amended

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WuMjg3ipEVa3n8CoSzoyvc

REVIEWED.md

@@ -896,4 +896,18 @@ brief. No work is blocked meanwhile; `wake-digest.py --brief` remains the fallba
 - **New condition — bounded check-in, not asked for in the package.** After the first FIX-lane batch or one month, whichever comes first, steward and jurist review the FIX-lane index together before the lane is treated as settled rather than provisional. Per Constitutional Constraint's own decision heuristic (prefer reversible choices) — costs nothing if the classification holds.
 - **Hard floor otherwise as proposed — AFFIRMED:** Constraint 1 (CLAUDE.md/REVIEWED.md/L2), authorization-boundary or gate-criteria changes, the escalate-unconditionally list, all untouched and all remain PROPOSAL/ESCALATE regardless of the test's answer.
 **If AUTHORIZED:** Land the §1.6 edit (classification test + sharpened floor + dual-plus-index instrument) with a provenance comment in `/wrap-up` SKILL.md; no change to `~/CLAUDE.md`. Apply to today's four proposals (ledger section, KG predicate, wake line, reframed question) as the first FIX-lane batch, feeding the check-in review. Tag commits REVIEWED-85.
-**Awaiting:** steward placement; mechanical verification of the §1.6/§2.a quotes; the bounded check-in once the first batch or one month has passed.
+**Awaiting:** steward placement; mechanical verification of the §1.6/§2.a quotes; the bounded check-in once the first batch or one month has passed.
+
+## REVIEWED-86 — Differently biased checkers, not unbiased ones (design-gate passed for DRAFTING ONLY — ESCALATE, application requires separate explicit steward authorization)
+**Date:** 2026-08-02
+**Decision:** AUTHORIZED to draft the Constraint 6 amendment for steward placement. NOT AUTHORIZED to apply — Constraint 1 and the escalate-unconditionally list both name this file; no ruling below the steward's own act of placing it changes that.
+**Notes:**
+- **Q1 — the gap is real — CONFIRMED**, independently checked against `~/CLAUDE.md` directly (Constraint 6 exact) and against the central-path file's own memory-index summary (substance and key phrases match).
+- **Q2 — sound, ONE required correction.** Weld Part IV's "fail to coincide, not cancel" qualifier and its ban on citing the doctrine as assurance that something *was* caught into Part III's actual proposed text — not left as surrounding commentary. Not draft-ready without this.
+- **Q3 — unresolved, and the doctrine's own landing must say so.** Jurist and executor share formation; whatever separates them is position, information, and incentive (category (i)), not formation (category (ii)) — the category Document B actually measured. The doctrine text should not be read, by its landing, as having validated the jurist-executor pair specifically. Recommend the correlation review the package itself names — clustered jurist/executor misses vs. a differently-clustered steward-correction pattern, run against the existing PENDING/REVIEWED record — be docketed as its own item rather than left hypothetical.
+- **Document B — credited as pilot evidence for category (ii) only, not as a measured rate.** Pre-registration, corpus predating the doctrine, and the reproduced Appendix pair all independently checked out on inspection. Sample (3 comparable pairs, one author, unresolved persona confound even within the comparable set) is too narrow to quantify anything; Document B's own Part F.2/F.3 already say so and that scoping should be preserved verbatim in whatever cites it.
+- **Q4 — sharpen to a retrieval obligation, fold into the existing check-in cadence** (REVIEWED-85), not a new standing review.
+- **Q5 — Constraint 6 — AFFIRMED as the right location, steward's call on final placement.**
+- **Process note, corrected.** The convergence was not two independent readers reaching the same idea from a shared root — the steward shared the jurist's exchange with him directly with the executor, as context, before Document A was filed. That is a tighter loop than parallel derivation: one party's language, relayed, feeding the other's proposal, which now returns to the first party for review. It does not bear on whether the underlying principle is sound — that turns on the separation-of-powers reasoning itself, not on who phrased it first — but it does mean the jurist should weigh, more carefully than usual, whether what reads as correct in Part III is the argument holding up rather than the jurist's own words returning familiar. Noted because it changes the standard the jurist should apply to itself here, not because it changes the ruling.
+**If AUTHORIZED for drafting:** Land Part III (with the Q2 weld applied) beside Constraint 6, plus the companion `contamination-problem.md` note named as owed in Part V, amendment-first per that repo's own discipline. Docket the Q3 correlation review separately. Tag REVIEWED-86.
+**Awaiting:** the Q2 weld, then steward review of the woven text; the Q3 note's exact wording; the correlation-review docket entry; and — the one that actually matters here — the steward's own explicit act of authorizing application, which nothing above substitutes for.