[FIX] Reduction 02: package reduces to 68.6% — the genre reading confirmed, Reduction 01 corrected

Prediction recorded in Reduction 01 BEFORE this census, so it could fail: the
package's Part I is 'Grounding (quoted verbatim)' and quotes CLAUDE.md directly,
so Q should be non-zero where it was zero. Q=9. D=40, where the ruling had none.

                 ruling    package
  sound           8.5%      68.6%
  PERFORMATIVE      12          0      <- the genre signature
  BLEND              9         25
  INHERITED          4          0
  UNSOURCED-QUOTE    3          0      <- §1's header clause worked

Genre reading confirmed eightfold: a package proposes, a ruling determines.

CORRECTS Reduction 01's strong conclusion that 'the reduction arm collapses into
the synthetic arm'. On package prose repair touches 31.4%, not 91.5% — reduction,
not authoring, and the two arms stay distinct. That conclusion was correctly
bounded at n=1; the bound was the whole of its content and one document collapsed
it. Reduction 01 now carries the correction inline.

BLEND is now the blocker and is genre-independent: 25 of 33 quarantines, 7 of
them rows of the Part IV table, which pairs a quote with an end-state and a
verdict — three primitives by construction.

Two check findings, one good and one bad:

§3.2 CAUGHT A REAL TAGGING ERROR OF MINE. Unit 145 was tagged Q; it is a sentence
ABOUT a quotation, not a quotation, so not verbatim-as-a-unit. Corrected to D.
The check found it, the reading did not — the 'quoted but not traced' defect the
jurist caught on 2026-07-19, mechanised.

§3.3 GAVE A FALSE PASS, found by looking. Part VII 'Disconfirming evidence' IS a
collected limitations section under §2a — the exact section trial 03 showed the
model skipping wholesale — and the screen missed it because it never says
'limitations'. Widened; the package now correctly FAILS §3.3. But no pattern can
decide this: a section titled only 'Part VII' defeats any wordlist, and a control
now asserts that. §3.3 is a SCREEN, not a decision; §2a belongs in §4's judgement
residue. Fourth time in three days a passing check certified the code while the
property failed, and the fourth found by a person looking.

A=0 IN BOTH DOCUMENTS, and it is the same fact as the §2a failure seen from the
other side: we do not name assumptions inline, we collect them into a section.
Our best governance prose is written in exactly the shape that defeats the reader
the section was written for.

Also fixed: the tool was still printing 'NOT checked here: §3.2' after §3.2 was
implemented — under-claiming, but still a false statement about what ran.

Kernel v1.1 candidates are now evidence-backed and remain UNAPPLIED; v1.0 stays
frozen and a revision is a new experiment. The false-positive control remains
unrun and neither reduction produced a usable control document.

claude/governance/fool/REDUCTION-01-jurist-ruling-2026-08-02.md

@@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ Non-destructive quarantine resolves this only in the sense that it makes the edi
 
 **Which means: on this genre, the reduction arm collapses into the synthetic arm — inheriting the synthetic arm's confirmation bias without its convenience.** The two arms were adopted precisely because they fail differently. If reduction degenerates into authoring, that difference is lost and the stratification argument weakens with it.
 
+> **CORRECTED by `REDUCTION-02-package-2026-08-02.md`, same day — read that before relying on this section.** On *package* prose the figure is **31.4%**, not 91.5%: repair touches a third of the document, which is reduction rather than authoring, and the two arms stay distinct. The claim above survives **only for authoritative prose, where it was measured.** The `n=1` bound stated below was the whole of its content, and one further document collapsed it.
+
 ## What this does NOT establish — n=1
 
 **One document, one genre.** Whether 91.5% is genre-specific or kernel-wide is *unmeasured*. The obvious comparison is a **package**, the genre the Fool actually reads: `differently-biased-checkers-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-01.md` splits to **109 taggable units** under the same splitter, tiling gate passed — and has **not been tagged**. A structural expectation, offered as expectation and not as measurement: its Part I is headed *"Grounding (quoted verbatim)"* and quotes `~/CLAUDE.md` directly, so `Q` should be non-zero there where it was zero here. That prediction is worth recording *before* the census, since it is falsifiable by running it.