diff --git a/REVIEWED.md b/REVIEWED.md
index 7cf3d64..1e6a5b6 100644
--- a/REVIEWED.md
+++ b/REVIEWED.md
@@ -2026,4 +2026,137 @@ contributes zero to PENDING-89 by construction is accepted as a design property.
 ### Scope note
 The jurist could not read the filed draft via `governance_read`; the text ruled on was
 supplied by the steward in-session. The filed sha256 `9aceed7f…` is unverified from
-this side.
\ No newline at end of file
+this side.
+
+## REVIEWED-125 — AMENDMENT 1 (2026-08-22): drafted before v2; dispositions reconciled against it
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-22
+**Status:** Joins REVIEWED-125. Does not replace it. The original ruling stands as
+the record of what was decided on the text available at the time.
+**Scope:** REVIEWED-125 was drafted before the jurist's v2 draft arrived. v2 governs
+where it and v1 differ. This amendment states, disposition by disposition, which parts
+of REVIEWED-125 are discharged, which converge with v2, which conflict, and which
+survive v2 unmet. **Nothing here bears on PENDING-150. `~/CLAUDE.md` is untouched.**
+
+### DISCHARGED — no longer open
+
+**§8a condition 1 — verify `statusLine`.** Discharged 2026-08-22. `statusLine` is NOT
+SET in `~/.claude/settings.json`, NOT SET in `~/.claude/settings.local.json`, and
+`~/dotfiles/claude/settings.json` does not exist. The surface is free; nothing is
+displaced and no accommodation is required. The option's cost and its one named risk
+both resolve favourably.
+
+**§5 ratification.** REVIEWED-125 recorded the five axes as awaiting steward
+ratification. The steward has since ratified them, and directed that the ratification
+be recorded explicitly rather than rest on v2's §5 heading. It is recorded at
+`claude/governance/fool/seed/FOOL-SEED-RULE.md` §1, with the axis order fixed, since
+the derivation permutes over that order.
+
+### CONVERGED — REVIEWED-125 and v2 reached the same result independently
+
+**§8's hard daily cap is rejected, on two distinct grounds.** REVIEWED-125 rejects it
+because a cap creates an observable *quota exhausted* state that arrives first on burst
+days, after which silence reads as depletion rather than as the 73% — defeating §8a's
+object. v2 §8 rejects it because a cap introduces a *budget-spent* state, which is
+memory, and memory is the beginning of learnability. **Both are correct and neither
+depends on the other.** The rejection is of the mechanism, not of the burst problem it
+addressed, which remains real.
+
+### CONFLICT 1 — `input-dependence-01-PREREGISTRATION.md`: RESOLVED, taking one half from each
+
+REVIEWED-125: *"DEFERRED, explicitly not parked. Held at the gate. Disposal by omission
+is refused."* v2 §15a: *"PARKED, with a forward pointer… it is parked here by name…
+not held live for §12."*
+
+**Ruled: the instrument is HELD AT THE GATE — not parked.** REVIEWED-125's status
+governs; v2 is a draft and says of itself that nothing in it is a ruling. The
+instrument is twice-amended on steward authorization and sits at a jurist gate, and an
+artifact in that state is not disposed of by a draft's side note.
+
+**But v2's substantive warning is adopted and is the stronger half:** if §12's
+swappable-generator work becomes live, the instrument is **re-derived against the new
+object, not resumed.** Reusing an instrument built for a different object is precisely
+what produced trial 09, and a forward pointer that invites resumption reproduces it.
+
+Operative form: **held at the gate; findable; if revived, re-derived not resumed.**
+
+### CONFLICT 2 — §8a's body: REVIEWED-125 condition 2 GOVERNS over v2 §8a
+
+REVIEWED-125 cond. 2: *"The body must RENDER silence, not merely occupy a line. A
+static name is a label and goes furniture-blind; §3 bars sprites and animation frames,
+so whatever changes must be derived from time or from nothing. Never from content."*
+v2 §8a: *"Body = the status line. Rendered every turn, carrying the name and nothing
+else."*
+
+**v2 specifies exactly the static label REVIEWED-125 rules insufficient, and
+REVIEWED-125 is right.** A fixed string stops being seen within days; at that point
+silence is not rendered but merely absent, which is the *interjection-only* failure
+arriving by another route — the failure the body/voice split exists to avoid.
+
+**Ruled: condition 2 stands and binds the build.** Whatever varies must derive from
+time or from nothing, never from content — content derivation makes the body gradeable
+and §2 forbids it. §3's bar on sprites and animation frames is unaffected. Not blocking
+the beacon; binding before any status-line implementation.
+
+### SURVIVES v2 AND IS STILL OWED
+
+**§8's adjusted proportions.** REVIEWED-125 deferred the re-derivation with the
+condition that the executor return with proportions **pre-registered and hardcoded, no
+cap**. v2 §8 re-keys the generator to three tiers (body every turn · mumble time-ticked
+· voice at seams) but specifies the mumble only as *"low, fixed"* — **no number.** The
+deliverable is therefore live and unmet, and rides with the mumble-hook answer after
+the beacon.
+
+Noted: REVIEWED-125 required that a change of trigger key be filed as an §8 amendment
+rather than carried inside an §8a answer. v2 changed the key itself, event-keyed to
+time-ticked, by the jurist's own hand. The instruction is satisfied as to form; the
+executor is put on notice that it applies to any further re-keying it proposes.
+
+**PENDING-89 source (iv).** The authorization to read
+`~/_Dev/animal-davidglidden-eu/chamber-sessions-private/` (55 files) stands unchanged.
+It answers whether two-formation divergence is substantive or stylistic; **it does not
+answer correlation of misses and may not be reported as doing so.** The executor's
+statement that the buddy fool contributes zero to PENDING-89 by construction is
+accepted as a design property, and is to be written into PENDING-89 explicitly so the
+fool is never later mistaken for its evidence.
+
+### THE BLOCK ON THE BEACON RUN
+
+REVIEWED-125 records that *"§13.6 continues to block every run."* That block's stated
+condition is steward ratification of §5, which has since been given.
+
+**Ruled: the block is lifted and the derivation is AUTHORIZED to run once, at the
+beacon pulse of 2026-08-25T12:00:00Z (epoch-ms 1787659200000), against the rule filed
+at `claude/governance/fool/seed/FOOL-SEED-RULE.md`.**
+
+Conditions, all already filed and pushed: axes ratified; seed rule filed with both
+components; retirement and regeneration criteria filed; derivation implemented and
+self-tested. **The executor runs it ONCE.** On any failure — bug, crash, wrong pulse,
+unavailable pulse beyond the 24-hour retry — it STOPS and reports. It does not retry on
+its own authority. The `outputValue` is passed to the derivation exactly as served,
+never normalized by any wrapper or hand edit before it reaches the single normalization
+point in the code.
+
+### SCOPE NOTE — carried forward, and it is structural
+
+REVIEWED-125 records that the jurist could not read the filed draft via
+`governance_read` and ruled on text supplied by the steward in-session, leaving the
+filed sha256 `9aceed7f…` unverified from the jurist's side. **The ruling's subject was
+therefore the pasted text, not the filed artifact.**
+
+In this instance they match: when a duplicate paste arrived, the executor diffed the
+received body against the filed copy and both hashed `72af4115…`, byte-identical. That
+check was available only because the executor happened to run it, and it is not
+available to the jurist at all.
+
+**This is PENDING-82 and PENDING-86 recurring, now inside a ruling rather than beside
+one.** Recorded here rather than left in a scope note, because a ruling whose subject
+may differ from the filed record is a defect class, not an inconvenience. No remedy is
+ruled here; it belongs to PENDING-82.
+
+### Filing note
+
+REVIEWED-125's original entry is unaltered and remains above this amendment. Amending
+by replacement is the defect the register-integrity check exists to catch, earned when
+REVIEWED-87's original entry was overwritten by its own amendment and nothing detected
+it.