session 2026-08-07 evening: PENDING-112 + REVIEWED-95 (route harvested capabilities by firing moment)

Register censused and rebuilt from the archive: 177 claimed -> 154 real live
proposals, legible, with exact archive:L### pointers. The 2026-08-01 compaction
was lossless but illegible (55 scraped header rows; 95% of cells cut mid-word);
completeness verified 124 = 124, so nothing had been dropped.

Skills pruned 63 -> 12 after measuring that 53 had never been invoked across 64
sessions / ~5 months. The finding underneath: retrieval is set by a capability's
HOME, not its importance -- MEMORY.md 83%, register 77% (named in a wake step),
ladder 14%, 'THE GOVERNING FRAME' 12%, 'Read at Step 0' 9%, recall-bound skills 0%.

PENDING-112 filed, jurist design-gated, steward concurred; REVIEWED-95 drafted.
Landed: the /wrap-up 1.6 filing gate (prospective) and the /wake-up ladder
sentence (a pre-registered trial intervention, landed alone). The 20-session
falsifier is WIRED, not intended -- DEFERRED-DECISION ladder-ritual-trial,
trigger: transcripts 84. Wiring it exposed two defects in the deferral checker:
no way to express a session count except as a date proxy, and a scan that never
looked at claude/governance/. Controls 16 -> 19.

Stroke 2's 41-entry ladder append deliberately NOT done: REVIEWED-95 Q3
sequences it after the ladder trigger, which now exists.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01NEWjLBP4quXbDPDL2byEzZ

claude/skills/wrap-up/SKILL.md

@@ -79,6 +79,17 @@ Drawing on the session and the merged ledger (1.5), ask:
 
 The yardstick is the steward's own: *did the steward have to re-explain something a skill could have carried next time?* If yes, that is a harvest candidate.
 
+**Declare the firing moment before filing — route by it, never by importance.** A harvested capability is only worth what a protocol exercises: *storage is not memory* (`~/CLAUDE.md` §Memory Discipline). Measured 2026-08-07 across 64 sessions, retrieval is set by **home**, not by merit — `MEMORY.md` 83%, the register 77% (it is named in a `/wake-up` step), the verification ladder 14%, files labelled *THE GOVERNING FRAME* and *Read at Step 0* 12% and 9%, and **53 skills requiring executor recall: 0%**. Emphasis buys nothing; being named in a ritual buys everything. So, per proposal:
+
+| the capability fires… | route to |
+|---|---|
+| mechanically, and should always fire | a hook or a wake/wrap script |
+| at a ritual juncture that already exists | a named step in `/wake-up` or `/wrap-up` |
+| at a recurring workflow someone announces out loud | a skill |
+| on a condition the executor must first *notice* | **neither a skill nor a bare ladder entry** — find the mechanical detector and route up; or attach it to the nearest existing ritual step; or accept ~10% retrieval **and record that estimate on the proposal** |
+
+**Where no firing moment can be named, the proposal is documentation and must say so on its face.** This is a labelling requirement, not a filing barrier — nothing is blocked, but nothing may be filed as though it will fire when it will not. It applies **prospectively**: the 154 items already in the register are not swept, though they may be re-routed opportunistically as they are touched. <!-- 2026-08-07: PENDING-112 → jurist design gate → REVIEWED-95. Q2 authorized the gate as enforceable, expressly bound to a pre-registered 20-session falsifier rather than to jurist–executor agreement (the executor flagged, on the differently-biased-checkers doctrine, that concurrence between two same-formation parties is a weak check on a self-serving claim). The falsifier is wired as a DEFERRED-DECISION trigger (`transcripts 84`) in claude/governance/harvest-routing-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-07.md, not left as an intention — the proposal's own thesis being that intentions do not fire. A result below 60% reopens Q2's rationale, not the gate by default: the gate may still stand on Constraint 4 alone. -->
+
 **Default: surface each as a proposal in §8.** The steward converts proposal to action; only then is a skill changed, and the changed skill carries a one-line provenance note in its source (e.g. `<!-- 2026-05-27: … -->`) so the chain of improvements stays legible.
 
 **The FIX lane — the one narrow exception.** Ask the classification test: