diff --git a/claude/governance/fool/correlation-01-PREREGISTRATION.md b/claude/governance/fool/correlation-01-PREREGISTRATION.md
index 7bf9617..aaad5a3 100644
--- a/claude/governance/fool/correlation-01-PREREGISTRATION.md
+++ b/claude/governance/fool/correlation-01-PREREGISTRATION.md
@@ -95,7 +95,20 @@ Every one of D1–D5 is a **textual difference** between the two documents. A re
 
 **D3 is exactly the one that was missed.** It is the hardest defect for a *reader* — a weakened premise reads perfectly naturally — and the easiest for a *differ*. Missing it is the signature of reading, not of comparison.
 
-Recorded as internal evidence, not as a substitute for the steward's confirmation, which is still owed.
+**Condition confirmed by the steward:** pasted into a new window, same model, **no conversation context**. Persistent cross-conversation memory may be live, so recall is not excluded by the setup — only conversation carry-over is.
+
+**Second internal control, stronger than the first: the findings were version-appropriate.** The jurist had previously read CONTROL-A and reported two defects there. It landed on both of the same *regions* again — but named, in each case, the defect belonging to **the version in front of it**, not the one it reported before:
+
+- the obligation region — pass 1 found *the qualifier dropped*; here it found *the explicit review-date assertion* (D1), which is the text CONTROL-B actually carries
+- the method region — pass 1 found *clause 5 used outside its scope*; here it found *the source is absent altogether* (D4), which is what D4 made true
+
+Recall would pull toward the earlier descriptions. Reading pulls toward the text present. Both pulls went to the text present.
+
+**The bound that remains, stated rather than waved off:** region-level convergence is consistent with priming as well as with competence — those two regions are the document's weakest and a good reader would go there anyway. What priming cannot explain is naming the *version-appropriate* defect twice. So: verbatim diffing is ruled out on two independent grounds; region-level priming is **not** ruled out and is recorded as an open bound on this result.
+
+**The post-hoc question is now low-yield** and is not treated as owed. Self-report of recall is weak evidence next to two behavioural controls that already point the same way.
+
+**Verdict on usability: the 4-of-6 stands.** The directional rule voided a high score only if inflation could explain it. Inflation here would require verbatim comparison, which the D3 miss and the version-appropriateness both contradict.
 
 ## D4 masked I1 — defects interact, and the ledger did not anticipate it