[GOVERNANCE] Steward places REVIEWED-125 AMENDMENT 1 — reconciled against v2

Steward-authored placement, committed on its own — the way e106a19's
predecessor should have been done.

The amendment JOINS REVIEWED-125; the original entry is unaltered at L1968.
Verified: the placed text is byte-identical to the draft, and the single line
git reports as deleted is only the "\ No newline at end of file" marker. No
content was replaced.

Two dispositions discharged (statusLine free; §5 ratified), one converged
(the cap, rejected twice on independent grounds), two conflicts resolved
(input-dependence-01 held-not-parked but re-derived-not-resumed; §8a's body
must render silence, not carry a static label), two owed (§8 proportions;
PENDING-89 source iv).

The beacon block is lifted: the derivation is authorized to run ONCE at
2026-08-25T12:00:00Z.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JQKeKY9T9d95KpvHwwok8T

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.
+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.