diff --git a/PENDING.md b/PENDING.md index a7e4790..4f14d90 100644 --- a/PENDING.md +++ b/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: ` 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.** + +---