[FIX] REVIEWED-86: file the ruling, draft the Constraint 6 amendment, docket Q3

Ruling filed verbatim. Drafting authorized by the steward's placement of
REVIEWED-86; application is not, and ~/CLAUDE.md is untouched.

The amendment adds a second paragraph to Constraint 6 and replaces nothing --
both original clauses survive verbatim, the caution is refined rather than
relaxed, and the L2 deferral stands.

Both jurist conditions welded into the text that would actually land, not left
in surrounding commentary, since a future reader cites the doctrine block and
not the discussion of it. Q2: biases that fail to coincide do not cancel, and
the doctrine may never be cited as assurance something WAS caught. Q3: the
jurist and executor do not differ in formation, their separation is the weaker
kind, and neither the doctrine nor its evidence establishes that pair as a check
in the strong sense -- the doctrine naming the configuration that produced it as
the one it does not vouch for.

Steward ruled the open question on `Status: provisional` sitting inside a section
headed "cannot be overridden": retain it. Constraint 6 already carries a temporal
qualifier, so the section is not free of them.

Paste block prepared separately, indented to continue the numbered list. The edit
is the steward's: Constraint 1 names this file and sits under "cannot be
overridden by any session instruction", and the ruling states the steward's own
act is what nothing substitutes for.

PENDING-89 dockets the Q3 correlation review the jurist declined to leave
hypothetical, with the hazard named -- this is the executor measuring whether the
executor is checked, so criteria must be pre-registered and it may be steward-only
work.

Q4 folded into the existing REVIEWED-85 check-in agenda rather than given its own
cadence, per the ruling's reasoning that a new standing review produces another
unread register.

PENDING-86 amended with its third instance: the jurist could not reach
contamination-problem.md while gating an argument that turns on it.

Convergence question closed. The jurist inferred a common source; the steward
confirmed it -- the exchange was shared as context only, and Document A predates
it, so the jurist's language cannot have shaped the proposal. Neither
contamination nor corroboration.

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

claude/memory/skill-harvest-fix-lane-index.md

@@ -19,6 +19,14 @@ clause yes → PROPOSAL) **and** the hard floor. When in doubt, propose.
 | 3 | `/wake-up` §2.b.2 | Surface one `prevention` alongside the drift-patterns, one line each way. The wake previously grepped only `drift-pattern`, so every session opened by re-reading what went wrong and never what compounded. | 2026-08-02 | 1 |
 | 4 | `/wrap-up` §1 (literal question) | Retired the self-report framing of the standing question. `contamination-problem.md` names direct self-report the most contaminated form of inquiry; the guidance now prefers the checkable form the same evidence answers — *does a lesson banked from one failure prevent a different failure later?* | 2026-08-02 | 1 |
 
+## Check-in agenda — what the steward–jurist review must cover
+
+Batch 1 is complete, so the check-in is **due**. Two items, the second added by a later ruling:
+
+1. **The lane itself** — do the four batch-1 changes hold up as class (i)? Was the two-clause test applied honestly, or rationalised around? Should the lane move from provisional to settled, be narrowed, or be withdrawn?
+
+2. **The retrieval obligation** (REVIEWED-86 Q4). The jurist directed this be folded into *this* check-in rather than given a standalone cadence, on the explicit grounds that a new standing review is the shape of thing that produces another unread register. The obligation: **the record is not just written, it is read.** Its evidence is the eighteen-month gap between the steward recording *"May smooth over tensions"* (2025-01-20, in the right words, in a durable indexed file) and it reaching the doctrine that needed it. Recording was not the failure; retrieval was. The check-in should therefore ask *what banked record bears on what we are about to decide, and who reads it* — not merely confirm that things were written down.
+
 ## Batch 1 — classification note
 
 All four were raised by the steward on 2026-07-29 and dispositioned as the first FIX-lane