[HARDENING] PENDING-131 Addendum 1 — (a) not executed; the diagnosis was wrong

Reading the passage before marking it refuted the description (a) was authorized
on. All 12 existing quotation regions are markdown blockquotes — a whole-line
construct — and the sidecar addresses by line-range; Ranaipiri is inline
guillemets 279 chars into L926. The pass marked every case the mechanism can
address. Mechanism gap, not curation gap.

Marking L926 would fence 279 chars of Mauss's own attributing sentence, and
L926 is ALREADY fr grounded gold (instances 6/12/16, stratum B, F4) — so (a)
would delete three gold instances under cover of a consistency fix. L1551 is the
same shape.

Underneath: the fr gold set resolves nested attribution as GROUNDED-but-hard,
§7.4(i) says the same construction must be REFUSED, and neither cites the other.
That contradiction is why the exemplar is unmarked. It also means my withdrawal
of B4 this morning and P7's retention of L926/L1551 cannot both be right, and I
withdrew without checking P7's treatment.

PENDING.md

@@ -2586,3 +2586,29 @@ Measured over `corpus/sidecars/*.json`, 2026-08-10:
 **Awaiting:** Steward authorization.
 
 ---
+
+## PENDING-131 — ADDENDUM 1: the diagnosis was wrong, and option (a) is not executable as authorized
+**Date:** 2026-08-10
+**Tag:** [HARDENING] — amendment to PENDING-131, filed before executing the authorized (a)
+
+**(a) was authorized as a narrow FIX — "make the Mauss sidecar internally consistent, one region joining twelve already using that mechanism in the same file." I did not execute it.** Reading the passage first refuted the description it was authorized on. Three findings, each independently disqualifying.
+
+**1 — THE SELECTION OPERATOR WAS NOT TYPOGRAPHY. IT WAS WHAT THE ADDRESSING MODEL CAN EXPRESS.** PENDING-131 says the marking pass "selected on display formatting". Measured: **all 12 existing `quotation` regions are markdown blockquotes (`> `), a whole-line construct**, and the sidecar addresses regions as line-ranges. The Ranaipiri testimony is **inline guillemets beginning 279 characters into L926**, after Mauss's own framing sentence naming Best and Ranaipiri. So the pass did not overlook a case it could have marked — **it marked every case the mechanism can address, and this is the case the mechanism cannot address at all.** That is a mechanism gap, not a curation gap, and it changes what (b) and (c) have to be.
+
+**2 — MARKING L926 WOULD PLACE A FALSE FENCE.** The line is 1,427 chars: 279 of Mauss's own assertion, then 1,144 of Ranaipiri. `role: quotation` carries `citable: false` at line granularity, so the only available act fences a genuine Mauss sentence — the sentence that *attributes* the testimony — along with the testimony. That is the Weil/Thibon defect **inverted**: there the error was serving another voice as the host's; here it would be refusing the host's own words. Trading an under-fence for an over-fence is not consistency.
+
+**3 — ⚠ L926 IS ALREADY GROUNDED GOLD, AND SO IS A SECOND INSTANCE OF THE SAME SHAPE.** `corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml` carries `span: [926,926]`, **instances 6, 12 and 16**, `stratum: B`, markers `[F4-nested-attribution, F10-mixed-script, F8-long-periodic]` — described there as *"the hardest inherited fr span"*. So the same passage is at once **the fr cell's hardest grounded gold** and **§7.4(i)'s named exemplar of what Tier-1 must refuse**. Both cannot be true. Executing (a) would silently take the fr cell from 11 distinct spans to 10 and from 15 bound instances to 12 — deleting gold under cover of a consistency fix. `span: [1551,1551]` (instance 8, `F4-nested-attribution`, *"Mauss quoting the Chroniques d'Arthur quoting the carpenter — three voices deep"*) is the same shape and would follow.
+
+**What this reveals about the corpus, stated as fact and not as verdict:** the fr gold set already resolves the nested-voice question **in the opposite direction from §7.4(i)** — it admits nested attribution as *grounded*, tags it `F4`, and grades it as hard-but-valid. §7.4(i) says the same construction must be *refused* and that the provenance join, not the NLI, must be what catches it. Neither document cites the other. This is a live contradiction between the ratified negative class and the inherited gold, and it is the reason the exemplar is unmarked — marking it costs three gold instances. Whether that trade was ever made deliberately is not established and I can find no record of it either way.
+
+**Sized, with the classification honestly withheld.** Inside Mauss's `role: text` regions, unmarked: **15 blockquote spans** (line-addressable — these *are* genuine curation misses the existing mechanism could have caught), **21 inline guillemet spans of ≥120 chars** (candidates, including L926, L928, L1551, and L1454's two orations), and **191 inline spans under 120 chars** (mostly terms and scare-quotes — `« mana »`, `« native »` — which are *not* served testimony). The 120-char cut is a **proxy and I am not defending it**; separating served testimony from scare-quotes needs reading, which is the item's own method caution applied to its own census.
+
+**Consequences for the options as filed:**
+- **(a) is withdrawn as scoped.** It cannot be done at line granularity without either fencing Mauss's own sentence or deleting three gold instances. A sub-line addressing form, or a decision to re-wrap the source, is a precondition — neither is a FIX.
+- **(c) must range over ADDRESSING, not vocabulary.** The steward's reframing — *"a region's voice must be distinguishable from its containing author's assertion, by a mechanism an instrument can read"* — is now the operative wording and has a concrete failure attached: the current mechanism cannot express a sub-line region, so reconciling `role: quotation` against `voice: <other>` would settle a vocabulary while leaving every inline case unreachable.
+- **(b)'s exposure-ordered first bite still holds** (Mauss, Weil, Alexander), and gains a prior question: for each source, *can* the mechanism address what reading finds? Alexander's six voices are blockquote-and-verse and mostly addressable; Mauss's hardest are not.
+- **A NEW QUESTION, and it now precedes all of them:** does the fr gold's admission of `F4` nested attribution stand, or does §7.4(i) stand? Ruling either resolves L926 and L1551 in one act; ruling neither leaves the corpus asserting both. ⚠ This bears directly on B4 in `corpus/v2-en-span-narrowing-PROPOSAL-2026-08-10.yaml`, which I withdrew from the EN grounded set earlier today for stacking F4 — while the fr cell keeps two of exactly that shape. **My withdrawal and P7's retention cannot both be right**, and I did not check P7's treatment before withdrawing.
+
+**Awaiting:** Steward authorization. **(a) is not executed and nothing in the corpus has been changed by this addendum.**
+
+---