[PROPOSAL] PENDING-134 (whose-proposition as doctrine); 132 split+re-grounded; 133 rescoped; MCP opens the V0-lane texts

Jurist ruling accepted in full on all six questions.

Q1: the variable is right, the derivation is not. §6.2 is PRE-REGISTERED, and a
test that changes stratum-B membership, derived after reading the spans it
reclassifies and entering by interpretation, voids that guarantee whether or not
the test is right. Filed as PENDING-134 — new doctrine, dated, with §7.4(ii) as
SUPPORTING ARGUMENT rather than derivation and §6.2's double omission recorded
as the counter-argument heard and overruled. The decisive form of that objection
is the jurist's: §6.2 admits F5 as 'qualified span (F5)', a construction that
would have admitted 'reported-speech span (F4)' and was in use one item away.

Q3: ran the fused-claim test on instance 8's fragments. It goes against
retention — fragment 2 opens on the tail of the carpenter's speech with NO
attributing clause before reaching Mauss's conclusion. The B4 shape. PENDING-132
amended: the retention is split out, and the retraction re-grounded on two
convergent bases so it is authorizable regardless of how 134 resolves.

133: rescoped from two F4-carrying spans to every fr grounded span, because the
bound assumed P7's tagging was complete and the item's own diagnosis says it had
no claim-side step at all.

And the access gap the ruling opened with: governance_read gains
v2-harness-design, v2-stratum-tags, mauss-fixture-spans, mauss-fixture-citations
— PENDING-86's fourth instance, same shape and same remedy as chamber-spec. The
jurist can now verify Part I rather than take it as testimony. Eight controls
including that the served text actually carries §6.2's pre-registration clause,
§5's F4 row and the L926 citation strings. Self-test 54 checks, 0 failures.

PENDING.md

@@ -2655,7 +2655,11 @@ Measured against the three contested cases, from `corpus/mauss-phase2-reanchored
 
 **Evidence (measured 2026-08-10, `corpus/mauss-phase2-reanchored.yaml` against the canonical).** Mauss's own framing sentence — the one naming Elsdon Best and Ranaipiri — occupies chars 0–279 of L926; the testimony runs 279–1427. All three citations begin at chars **308, 843 and 932**, inside the testimony. All three are first-person (*"Je dois vous les donner"*; *"Si je conservais ce deuxième taonga pour moi, il pourrait m'en venir du mal, sérieusement, même la mort"*). **None carries an attributing clause.** Under the whose-proposition test they assert Ranaipiri's propositions, not Mauss's.
 
-**Contrast, deliberately included so the retraction is not read as a rule about nesting:** instance 8 (L1551) carries *"Le charpentier dit à Arthur :"* **and** closes on Mauss's own conclusion *"Il n'y eut plus de 'haut bout' et partant, plus de querelles."* — the carpenter's speech deployed as evidence inside Mauss's argument. **Instance 8 should be RETAINED.** P7 tagged both `F4-nested-attribution` and treated them alike; the test separates them.
+**⚠ AMENDED 2026-08-10 on the jurist's ruling: the instance-8 retention is SPLIT OUT of this item.** The original text read *"Instance 8 should be RETAINED"*, which would have authorized that retention **by inclusion** in an item whose decidable content is the L926 retraction. It is not decidable. Ruled: instance 8 needs the same fused-claim test that withdrew B4 this morning, and the structural-marker reading cannot supply it — the positional probe failed on instance 8 precisely because it is a two-fragment composite.
+
+**Run 2026-08-10, and it goes against retention.** Fragment 1 (*"Le charpentier dit à Arthur : 'Je te ferai une table très belle…'"*) carries the attributing clause. **Fragment 2 does not** — it opens on the tail of the carpenter's speech (*"Aucun chevalier ne pourra livrer combat, car là, le haut placé sera sur le même pied que le bas placé.'"*) and only then reaches Mauss's conclusion. A claim grounded on fragment 2 alone would assert the carpenter's proposition with no attribution in view. **That is the B4 shape.** Instance 8 is fused across its fragments and its disposition is its own item, not this one's contrast.
+
+**⚠ AND THIS ITEM IS RE-GROUNDED ON TWO CONVERGENT BASES, so it is authorizable regardless of how the doctrine question resolves.** As first drafted it rested only on the whose-proposition test — a gate that is not ruled, which made this item contingent on it. L926 leaves the grounded set under **both** readings now in play: (1) the claim-side test, since its three citations assert Ranaipiri's propositions; **and** (2) the stricter reading that §6.2's double omission of F4 disqualifies the marker from stratum B outright. The two disagree about F4 in general and converge on L926 in particular.
 
 **Effect if authorized:** fr distinct spans 11 → 10, bound instances 15 → 12, stratum 1 A : 9 B → 1 A : 8 B. Every figure derived from the old baseline is already marked stale in `corpus/v2-en-span-narrowing-PROPOSAL-2026-08-10.yaml` (commit `a87fef5`) and must be re-derived, not adjusted.
 
@@ -2701,3 +2705,36 @@ Measured against the three contested cases, from `corpus/mauss-phase2-reanchored
 **§5 — STANDING POSTURE UNTIL (c) RULES: identification passes, reports and records; no writes to the corpus.** Three diagnoses moved today and two reversed, and every reversal was free because nothing in the corpus had changed. That is the reason to hold the posture, not caution for its own sake.
 
 ---
+
+## PENDING-134 — The whose-proposition test, filed as new doctrine rather than as a reading
+**Date:** 2026-08-10
+**Tag:** [PROPOSAL]
+
+**Summary:** A claim grounded in a span containing reported speech is admissible when it asserts the **host's** proposition (the reported words serving as evidence inside the host's argument) and refusable when it asserts the **nested voice's** proposition as the host's own.
+
+**Why this is filed as doctrine and not as a reading of the ratified design — the jurist's ruling, accepted in full.** The `nested-voice-class-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-10.md` argued this test was *already supplied* by §7.4(ii)'s F5 parallel. That derivation fails, and the reason is decisive: **§6.2 is PRE-REGISTERED** — its own parenthetical says so. Pre-registration's entire value is that the scheme was fixed *before* anyone saw which spans landed where. A test that changes stratum-B membership, derived on 2026-08-10 *after* reading the spans it reclassifies, entering by interpretation rather than amendment, voids that guarantee **whether or not the test is right**. Had the package's headline stood, a pre-registered scheme would have been amended without an amendment.
+
+**The counter-argument, recorded as heard and overruled** (this is the whole point of filing it this way — a later reader must find the objection, not reconstruct it): §6.2 admits F5 as **"qualified span (F5)"** — it names a *span property* and parenthesises the failure-mode row it risks. That construction would have admitted F4 as *"reported-speech span (F4)"*, and the drafters were using it one item away in the same list. They did not. Further, the design has **two** admission routes to stratum B — §6.2's enumeration, and an explicit clause in the §5 row — and **F10 has the second where F4 has neither**. Two available mechanisms, both unused, is not an accident of enumeration. **This argues that F4-marked spans are excluded from stratum B outright**, which is a stricter rule than the test proposed here.
+
+**Supporting argument (NOT derivation):** §7.4(ii) names *"the F5 exercise"* as a negative operator while §6.2 lists *"qualified span (F5)"* as a stratum-B marker, and both hold coherently — a marker names a span property; what the claim does with it fixes the disposition. This shows the proposed test is **consistent with** the design's existing shape. It does not show the design already contains it.
+
+**Recommendation:** adopt as doctrine, dated, with the counter-argument above recorded in the `REVIEWED.md` entry. If instead the stricter reading is preferred, F4-marked spans leave stratum B wholesale and instance 8 goes with L926 — a cleaner rule with a larger cost, and the choice is the steward's.
+
+**Files affected:** `~/REVIEWED.md` (the doctrine entry) · `corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml` (re-tagging under whichever rule lands) · PENDING-131/132/133.
+
+**Awaiting:** Steward authorization.
+
+---
+
+## PENDING-133 — AMENDMENT 1: the replacement was under-scoped by its own diagnosis
+**Date:** 2026-08-10
+
+**Ruled and accepted.** PENDING-133's replacement bounded the re-tagging pass at *"two such spans in the fr cell today"* — the F4-carrying ones. That bound holds only if **P7's F4 tagging is complete**, i.e. if every fr span containing reported speech carries F4. Nobody has checked, and today's own evidence points the other way: **21 inline guillemet spans ≥120 chars sit unmarked** inside Mauss's `role: text` regions. The corpus marking pass missed inline cases; there is no reason to assume P7's span-side tagging did not miss the same spans, by the same mechanism, on the same source.
+
+⚠ **The item's own diagnosis says so and I did not follow it:** *"P7's tagging had no claim-side step."* If that is true it is true of **the whole cell**, not of the two spans that happen to wear the marker. Trusting a prior pass's completeness is the failure this arc has been about, committed inside the item filed to describe it.
+
+**Corrected scope: every fr grounded span — nine or ten — read for reported speech, then dispositioned where present.** Still cheap; arrived at by reading rather than by inheriting P7's marker set.
+
+**Awaiting:** Steward authorization (with PENDING-134, which supplies the rule this pass applies).
+
+---

scripts/governance-mcp.py

@@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ import time
 HOME = os.path.expanduser("~")
 D = os.path.join(HOME, "dotfiles")
 SCRIPTS = os.path.join(D, "scripts")
+ENGINE = os.path.join(HOME, "_Dev", "studium-engine")
 NAME, VERSION = "governance", "1.0.0"
 
 # Newest protocol we speak; we echo the client's version when it sends a known one.
@@ -85,6 +86,33 @@ FILES = {
     "graduation-spec":  (os.path.join(HOME, "_Dev", "chamber-library", "_curation",
                                       "graduation-spec.yaml"),
                          "the constitution's machine-readable convention-data + gate-list"),
+    # PENDING-86 class, FOURTH instance — steward-requested 2026-08-10. Same shape
+    # as the two above and the same remedy: the jurist design-gates a V0-lane
+    # matter (§7.4(i) governs what Tier-1 must REFUSE) whose governing text it
+    # could not open, and said so at the top of its own ruling — "every quotation
+    # in Part I is your testimony, not something I can reach. That is exactly the
+    # material two of today's three reversals turned on." Read-only, keyed, no
+    # path argument; the enum design is unchanged.
+    "v2-harness-design": (os.path.join(ENGINE, "docs",
+                                       "v2-validation-harness-design-2026-07-09.md"),
+                          "the V2 validation-harness design — the ratified text behind the "
+                          "nested-voice arc. §5 = failure-mode table (F1–F10, each with a "
+                          "Direction and an 'Exercised by' column); §6.2 = the PRE-REGISTERED "
+                          "difficulty strata; §7.4 = whole-for-part attribution, sub-type (i) "
+                          "nested-voice. ⚠ Long (~65 KB); page to the § you need rather than "
+                          "reading from the top"),
+    "v2-stratum-tags":  (os.path.join(ENGINE, "corpus", "v2-stratum-tags.yaml"),
+                         "P7 — the stratum tagging of the INHERITED gold (fr Mauss; en March "
+                         "chavruta). ⚠ Its `en` block is `taggable: false`, and its fr ratio "
+                         "1:9 is under challenge — see PENDING-132/133"),
+    "mauss-fixture-spans": (os.path.join(ENGINE, "corpus", "mauss-phase2-spans.yaml"),
+                            "the fr fixture — 15 bound instances / 11 distinct spans, with "
+                            "per-instance Tier-1 verdicts. Locations and verdicts only"),
+    "mauss-fixture-citations": (os.path.join(ENGINE, "corpus",
+                                             "mauss-phase2-reanchored.yaml"),
+                                "the fr fixture's CITATION TEXTS — the quoted strings "
+                                "themselves. This is the file that answers 'whose "
+                                "proposition does the claim assert?'"),
 }
 REPOS = wd.REPOS
 
@@ -480,6 +508,25 @@ def selftest():
     chk("governance_read ACCEPTS a listed key  [positive control for the refusal above]",
         t_read({"file": "pending"}).startswith("[pending —"))
 
+    print("\nPENDING-86 4th instance — the V0-lane texts behind the nested-voice arc:")
+    chk("v2-harness-design key reads",
+        t_read({"file": "v2-harness-design"}).startswith("[v2-harness-design —"))
+    chk("...and carries §6.2's PRE-REGISTERED strata  [the clause the ruling turns on]",
+        "Difficulty strata (pre-registered" in t_read({"file": "v2-harness-design"}))
+    chk("...and carries §7.4's nested-voice sub-type",
+        "nested-voice" in t_read({"file": "v2-harness-design"}))
+    chk("...and carries §5's F4 row, whose omission from §6.2 is the counter-argument",
+        "Irony / persona distance / unasserted content" in t_read({"file": "v2-harness-design"}))
+    chk("v2-stratum-tags (P7) key reads, and its en cell is the untaggable one",
+        "taggable: false" in t_read({"file": "v2-stratum-tags"}))
+    chk("mauss-fixture-spans key reads",
+        t_read({"file": "mauss-fixture-spans"}).startswith("[mauss-fixture-spans —"))
+    chk("mauss-fixture-citations carries the CITATION TEXT, not just the locations"
+        "  [the file that answers whose-proposition]",
+        "Le charpentier dit à Arthur" in t_read({"file": "mauss-fixture-citations"}))
+    chk("...and the L926 testimony the whole arc turns on",
+        "Le hau n'est pas le vent qui souffle" in t_read({"file": "mauss-fixture-citations"}))
+
     print("\nPENDING-86 (a) — the documents the jurist design-gates are now reachable:")
     chk("chamber-spec key reads",
         t_read({"file": "chamber-spec"}).startswith("[chamber-spec —"))