governance: PENDING-137 filed, PENDING-89 docket entry 2026-08-14 (REVIEWED-121 pts 2 and 4)

PENDING-137 — the cell-constant reading narrowed §6.2 by reading; REVIEWED-121
point 1's line puts it on the jurist's side, not D-1's. Remedy undecided,
recommendation (b): its own amendment dated 2026-08-07 when it took force,
since point 9's ruled resulting state is 'dated amendments', plural.

PENDING-89 docket — the jurist caught three defects in the executor's package,
none caught by the executor's controls. ⚠ The direction is the finding: the
IV.1 error understated an objection to the executor's OWN proposal, inside the
one paragraph written to state it at full strength. Countervailing evidence
recorded beside it (the executor volunteered Q4 and Q1, both against interest).
Instrument refinement: a passing control is not verification unless its subject
is the claim.

⚠ REVIEWED.md is dirty with the steward's placement of REVIEWED-121 and is
deliberately NOT staged — /wrap-up §6.5, and the unscoped-git-add-in-dotfiles
pattern banked 2026-08-13.

PENDING.md

@@ -779,6 +779,24 @@ Measured against the register itself before acting. Four corrections; the item's
 
 ⚠ **Standing hazard, unresolved:** every entry above is self-reported by one of the two parties under measurement. This is the contaminated form the item's own Recommendation names. n is small and drawn from a single arc. Treat as material for the pre-registered run, **not as the run.**
 
+### Docket entry 2026-08-14 — a cross-direction catch, and the miss ran in the direction the contamination problem predicts
+*Filed per REVIEWED-121 point 4, which directs it here. Raw classifications left checkable; this is evidence, not a verdict. One instance.*
+
+**Cross-direction catch (jurist → executor), three defects in one package.** On `docs/whose-proposition-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-14.md`, the jurist went to the substrate rather than accepting the package's transcriptions and returned three findings, none of which the executor's own controls caught:
+1. **A false census marked verified.** Part IV.1 asserted *"F10 is the only §5 row containing an explicit stratum-B admission clause"* under the label *verified verbatim*. **Three rows carry one** (F3, F7, F10) — and F3 and F7 are quoted **with those clauses intact in the package's own §I.2**, and reproduced as "stratum-B gold" in its own IV.2 table one page later. Re-censused by mechanism after the ruling: F3/F7/F10 confirmed.
+2. **A cost stated on the wrong population** — the stricter rule priced at "one span" (inherited gold) when the rule it prices is a prospective authoring constraint the package's own III.3 sizes at 73 Mauss / 532 corpus floor. Third instance of the PENDING-136 denominator class.
+3. **An unamended narrowing of §6.2 already in force** (`v2-stratum-tags.yaml`'s cell-constant decision) that the executor did not know of, having read that file's fr block for its counts without reading its header — where the narrowing sits directly beneath a quotation of the §6.2 text it narrows.
+
+**⚠ THE DIRECTION IS THE FINDING, and it is the contamination-predicted one.** Defect 1 sat inside the paragraph written to satisfy H1(a) — *state the counter-argument at full strength* — and it **understated an objection to the executor's own proposal.** The error favoured the position the executor was arguing for, in the one paragraph whose entire purpose was to argue against it. This is the shape the doctrine says to watch for, observed on the party disposed to produce it.
+
+**Against a clean reading of that, recorded because it cuts the other way:** the executor volunteered Q4 (whether the doctrine substitutes for the unbuilt fence), which cut against its own proposal and which the jurist then built on rather than originated; and it surfaced Q1's routing question, which pointed work away from the jurist's seat. So the executor's misses in this instance were not uniformly self-serving. **Mixed, and recorded as mixed.**
+
+**Instrument refinement earned, and it sharpens entry 5 above.** The executor's verification script checked whether *quotes were present in both source and package*. IV.1's claim was an *inference over the set of rows*. The control tested transcription fidelity and was **structurally incapable of testing the claim it was cited as verifying** — and its pass is what licensed the false sentence. So: **a control that verifies a different property than the claim asserts is not a weak check; it is not a check at all, and its pass is affirmative licence for the error.** Kin to entry 5's *access is not verification*, one layer over: **a passing control is not verification either, unless its subject is the claim.**
+
+**⇒ For the pre-registered run:** this instance is category (c) — caught by another party's challenge, not by the tool's own controls and not by executor re-checking. It is direct material for the standing question of whether control sets catch coverage gaps or only regressions in already-covered cases.
+
+⚠ **Standing hazard unchanged:** self-reported by one of the two parties under measurement, n small, single arc. Material for the pre-registered run, **not the run.**
+
 ## PENDING-90 — First L2 transfer: checker position in the calibration loop
 **Date:** 2026-08-02
 **Tag:** [ESCALATE]
@@ -2981,3 +2999,42 @@ The reason is that (a) and (b) both answer *"which population did this field mea
 **Awaiting:** Steward authorization.
 
 ---
+## PENDING-137 — "Cell-constant markers do not stratify" narrowed §6.2 by reading, and by REVIEWED-121's own line it was mis-routed
+**Date:** 2026-08-14
+**Tag:** [PROPOSAL]
+
+**Summary:** `corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml` opens with a recorded D-1 decision under which cross-lingual claim-span and archaic register (F7) — both named in §6.2's pre-registered stratum-B enumeration — do not earn B in the fr/de cells; removing two markers' effect changes what §6.2 *means*, which REVIEWED-121 point 1 places on the jurist's side of the line rather than D-1's.
+
+**Filed per REVIEWED-121 point 2, which routes it here and states that what is undecided is the remedy, not the routing.**
+
+**What it says, verbatim** (`corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml`, executed 2026-08-07; the block is a YAML comment, so the leading `# ` markers and one decorative `---` rule between the heading and the body are dropped — 169 words, word-for-word identical, verified by alignment against the file):
+
+> DECISION (D-1, recorded not silent): CELL-CONSTANT MARKERS DO NOT STRATIFY.
+> Two of §6.2's B-markers are constants of the fr and de cells rather than variables within them: every fr/de pair is cross-lingual by construction (§1.5: "the production shape (EN claim <-> FR span) is already the gold's shape"), and all of Mauss is 1925 French, so archaic register (F7) is likewise uniform. Read literally, either marker alone makes the fr and de cells 100% B, which makes A:B ≈ 1:1 unsatisfiable there and leaves the stratification carrying no information — defeating the stated purpose, that "the ratified recall bar cannot be gamed by an easy-heavy pool." So: a marker stratifies only where it VARIES within its cell. Cross-lingual and archaic register are recorded per pair but do not by themselves earn B in fr/de. They would earn B in the en cell, where they are not constant.
+> Surfaced rather than assumed: this is a §6.2 reading, and §6.2 composition is D-1 ("gold-pair selection mechanics", V0 Ruling §5). Overrule freely.
+
+**⚠ THE REASONING IS NOT IN QUESTION AND NOTHING HERE SUGGESTS IT IS WRONG.** Its author surfaced it rather than assuming it, named it *"a §6.2 reading"*, recorded the D-1 ground it was taken under, and closed **"Overrule freely."** That is why this is correctable rather than a breach. What is at issue is routing and disclosure, not substance — and REVIEWED-121 point 2 says so in those terms.
+
+**Why it is the same act REVIEWED-116 point 1 ruled impermissible, running the other way.** It is a post-hoc change to stratum-B membership, derived after seeing the cell, entering by interpretation rather than by disclosed amendment. PENDING-134 was held from 2026-08-10 to 2026-08-14 on precisely that ground and required an amendment with a dated disclosure. This one took force on 2026-08-07 under D-1 and has governed the fr cell since, undisclosed. **The asymmetry needs a stated ground or the two need the same treatment** — which is what REVIEWED-121 point 1's line now supplies: an act that changes what §6.2 *means* comes to the jurist; an act that *applies* §6.2 to particular spans is D-1. Removing two markers' effect is the first kind.
+
+**⚠ CONSEQUENCE FOR H3, WHICH IS WHY IT CANNOT SIMPLY BE NOTED.** The before-state that PENDING-134's disclosure must record is **not** §6.2 as ratified 2026-07-09. It is §6.2 *as operated on the fr cell*, already carrying this narrowing. A disclosure naming only the ratified text would be incomplete in exactly the way H3 exists to prevent — and REVIEWED-121 point 9 rules it so. Until this item lands, PENDING-134's disclosure names half its own before-state.
+
+**⚠ AND IT GATES A NUMBER.** REVIEWED-121's disposition holds `ratio_A_to_B` VOID until **both** REVIEWED-121 and this item land. The ratio cannot be re-derived while one of the two amendments to the scheme it is computed under is unrecorded.
+
+**OPTIONS.**
+
+- **(a) Ratify the narrowing as a second dated amendment folded into the disclosure PENDING-134 lands.** Cheapest. Cost: dates it to 2026-08-14 when it took force 2026-08-07, and attaches it to a doctrine it does not depend on.
+- **(b) Ratify it as its own amendment, separately dated 2026-08-07.** §6.2 then carries **two** dated amendments, in the order they actually occurred.
+- **(c) Overrule it and restore the literal reading.** fr and de go 100% stratum B; A:B ≈ 1:1 becomes unsatisfiable in those cells and the stratification carries no information there.
+
+**RECOMMENDATION: (b).** It took force on its own date under its own reasoning, and folding it into PENDING-134's disclosure would date it wrongly and bind two independent acts together. Option (i) of H3 — *a pre-registration carrying dated amendments* — is already the ruled resulting state, and it is plural in REVIEWED-121 point 9's own wording (*"dated amendments"*), which (b) satisfies exactly and (a) does not.
+
+**(c) is listed because the option set must not hide the literal reading, but it is not seriously available:** it defeats the stated purpose of stratification, and REVIEWED-121 point 2 records that nothing suggests the reading itself is wrong.
+
+**⚠ WHAT THIS ITEM DOES NOT DECIDE.** Whether the *en* cell's treatment of the same two markers is correct — the decision says they "would earn B in the en cell, where they are not constant", and the en block is `taggable: false`, so no en pair has ever been tagged under it. That is untested in force, on the same footing REVIEWED-121's own disposition records for the whose-proposition test.
+
+**Files affected:** `~/REVIEWED.md` (the amendment entry); `corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml` (the disclosure field, alongside REVIEWED-121's `stratum_amended_post_hoc`).
+
+**Awaiting:** Jurist ruling per REVIEWED-121 point 2, then steward authorization.
+
+---