session close 08-17: AMENDMENT 1 complete, binding rule ratified

The truncation and the unclosed fence are both resolved; A3's binding rule is
ratified and quoted verbatim in corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml.

⚠ Banked: a governed record's own FORMATTING can make an entry invisible to the
check that guards it while the check reports clean. The re-paste indented the
body but left the heading at column 0 — had it indented the heading, RE_HEAD
would have stopped matching and the amendment would have vanished from
register-integrity with no alarm. Third instance in a week of a check whose
subject sits adjacent to the property that matters.

claude/memory/knowledge-graph.jsonl

@@ -660,3 +660,4 @@
 {"subject": "governance-drift-check.py", "predicate": "drift-pattern", "object": "TWO BLIND SPOTS, the second found by filing an item about the first. (A) RE_HEAD = ^##\\s+REVIEWED-(\\d+)\\s*[—-]\\s*(.*)$ cannot see a ###-level amendment: 2 amendments present in REVIEWED.md, 1 seen, and it prints '✓ every amendment link resolves (1 amendment(s) checked)'. (B) RE_BUILT = \\bBUILT\\b matches the marker even when preceded by NOT, reading a negation as an assertion. Common cause is the TECHNIQUE, not the regexes: a STATUS inferred from NARRATIVE prose never constrained to carry one. PENDING-139. ⚠ The register is now worded around (B), disclosed — so the check's silence on it is an accommodation, NOT a pass.", "valid_from": "2026-08-14", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 1.0, "source_file": "session-2026-08-14-the-controls-tested-the-wrong-property.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-14"}
 {"subject": "checker substrate access", "predicate": "drift-pattern-good-direction", "object": "THE VARIABLE THAT DECIDED WHETHER THE JURIST CAUGHT THE EXECUTOR WAS ACCESS, NOT BIAS. Without governance_read keys (2026-08-10, REVIEWED-116 pt 7) the jurist ruled on the executor's testimony and its own drafted A4 asserted a test 'is not doubted' about a function that does not exist. With four keys served (2026-08-14, after REVIEWED-117) it opened the files and returned three defects in one sitting — a false census marked verified, a cost on the wrong population, and an unamended §6.2 narrowing. Formation, role and incentive were IDENTICAL across both sittings. ⇒ Constraint 6's two axes (formation; role/information/incentive) may be necessary and radically insufficient: a differently-biased reader with no access checks the ACCOUNT, not the THING. Filed PENDING-140 [ESCALATE]. ⚠ n=1 per condition, self-reported by parties under measurement, and authored by the party whose checking is at issue.", "valid_from": "2026-08-17", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 0.7, "source_file": "session-2026-08-14-the-controls-tested-the-wrong-property.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-17"}
 {"subject": "contamination-problem.md", "predicate": "scope-limit", "object": "IS A THEORY OF ONE MISALIGNMENT FLAVOUR, USED HERE AS THE THEORY OF EXECUTOR FAILURE IN GENERAL. Against Byrnes's four-flavour taxonomy (imitative→seven-sins · human-approval→glazing · automatic-verifiers→literal-genie · LLM-judges→trickster), every mitigation in the doc — behavioural observation, explicit permission structures, indirect questioning, longitudinal analysis — is calibrated against APPROVAL-SEEKING, i.e. glazing. A crude keyword probe over the 235 banked claude-code drift-patterns classified 106 and left 129 unclassified: 86 literal-genie, 12 trickster, 8 glazing, 0 seven-sins. ⚠ The classifier is keyword-matching over prose — the exact defect PENDING-139 names — so indicative, not measured. If the skew survives a real instrument, our doctrine is ~100% anti-sycophancy while our failures are dominated by verifier-Goodhart, against which a control is simply another proxy.", "valid_from": "2026-08-17", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 0.6, "source_file": "session-2026-08-14-the-controls-tested-the-wrong-property.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-17"}
+{"subject": "a governed record's own formatting", "predicate": "drift-pattern", "object": "CAN MAKE AN ENTRY INVISIBLE TO THE CHECK THAT GUARDS IT, WHILE THE CHECK REPORTS CLEAN. REVIEWED-121 AMENDMENT 1 was placed truncated (ended mid-A3), then re-pasted with an unclosed ```yaml fence that swallowed A3's binding rule, all of A4 and the disposition — rendering them as code and stripping their emphasis — and would have swallowed the NEXT entry appended to REVIEWED.md. Register-integrity reported clean throughout, because its subject is HEADINGS, not fences. The re-paste also indented the body 2 spaces; had it indented the HEADING, RE_HEAD (^##\\s+) would have stopped matching and the amendment would have vanished from the check entirely with no alarm. Third instance in one week of a check whose subject sits adjacent to the property that matters.", "valid_from": "2026-08-17", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 1.0, "source_file": "session-2026-08-14-the-controls-tested-the-wrong-property.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-17"}