[FIX] 'abandonment' -> 'retirement' in the fool's doctrine; §6 was false as of today

The jurist owned this mismatch and scheduled it after the beacon so no edit would
touch the filed rule before it fired. It fired at 12:00Z; this is that harmonization.
v2 §4 step 3 said "Abandonment criterion" while §10 defined RETIREMENT.

Censused before editing rather than sed'd. All 24 abandon* occurrences in the fool
tree were counted and read in context: 9 were doctrine and changed; 13 in the trial-09
family were LEFT — that is the word §6 of the trial design owns, in its own sense about
the jester form, and a blanket replace would have silently collided the two meanings it
was supposed to separate. 1 in input-dependence-01 is ordinary English about the void of
a numbering. 1 in FOOL-BONES is the dated record of what was owed.

Prior wording preserved in place at every changed site. REVIEWED-125 ruled on the v2
draft's text; an untraceable edit drifts a ruling's subject away from its artifact, which
is the PENDING-82/86 hazard this item's own record already notes recurring inside a
ruling. The criterion is unchanged — only the word naming it.

Separately, found while in the file: §6 "What has NOT happened" asserted the pulse had
not been fetched and no bones derived. Both went false at 12:00Z today. Marked superseded
in part, bullets struck rather than deleted since they are the pre-registration record,
and pointed at FOOL-BONES for current state. A governance doc asserting stale current
state is what Constraint 4 forbids.

New §7 logs every post-beacon edit to the filed rule, so "filed and pushed before the
beacon" stays auditable instead of eroding one silent correction at a time. Its claim
that §1/§2/§2a/§3/§5/§5a are untouched was verified by reading the diff hunks against
the pre-edit section map, not asserted.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J6hZXNYSxEfZseBGTni4sf

claude/governance/fool/BUDDY-PATTERN-jurist-draft-v2-2026-08-22.md

@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ Each step committed and pushed before the next begins.
 
 1. Perception axes ratified by the steward (§5).
 2. Seed derivation rule filed, naming a **future** timestamp (§6).
-3. Abandonment criterion filed (§10).
+3. Retirement criterion filed (§10).
 4. Regeneration criterion filed (§10).
 5. Timestamp passes; seed computed; bones derived.
 6. Soul generated once from the bones (§7).
@@ -116,6 +116,22 @@ Each step committed and pushed before the next begins.
 Steps 1–4 complete and pushed **before** step 5. Axes chosen after the seed is
 known, or with a fool in hand, smuggle the selection one level up.
 
+⚠ **`[FIX]` 2026-08-25 — step 3 read *"Abandonment criterion"* until today.** §10 has
+always defined **RETIREMENT**; the jurist ruled the fool's own doctrine should carry one
+word with one meaning (recorded in `seed/FOOL-SEED-RULE.md` §5b), and scheduled the
+harmonization **after** the beacon so no edit touched the filed rule before it fired. It
+fired 2026-08-25T12:00:00Z; this is that harmonization. **The criterion itself is
+unchanged — only the word naming it.**
+
+*Abandonment* is deliberately left standing where **§6 of the trial-09 design** owns it:
+a different criterion, about the jester form, assessed across trial 09 and one frontier
+replication. Thirteen occurrences there were censused and left untouched.
+
+⚠ **The prior wording is recorded here rather than silently replaced.** REVIEWED-125
+ruled on this document's text. An edit that leaves no trace makes the ruling's subject
+drift from the artifact it ruled on — the hazard PENDING-82 / PENDING-86 already track,
+and which this very item's record notes recurring *inside* a ruling.
+
 ## 5 · Perception axes — five, ratified by the steward
 
 Five axes, 0–100. Each is something the fool could be **blind to**. The steward
@@ -402,8 +418,9 @@ negligible cost. Do not build for it now; do not preclude it.
 1. Spec document in the governance tree, provenance header naming this v2 draft
    and what was changed.
 2. Status-line availability confirmed (§8a) **before** §8 is implemented.
-3. Filed axes, seed rule (both components, §6), abandonment and regeneration
+3. Filed axes, seed rule (both components, §6), retirement and regeneration
    criteria — committed and pushed **before** the beacon timestamp.
+   *(`[FIX]` 2026-08-25: read "abandonment" until today — see the note under §4.)*
 4. Derivation implementation: deterministic, fresh-overrides-stored, no reroll
    path, **no salt from any reference implementation.**
 5. Post-derivation record per §6a, in a single commit: raw beacon value, seed

claude/governance/fool/seed/FOOL-SEED-RULE.md

@@ -182,14 +182,18 @@ precisely because it would soften the dump.
 
 ## 4 · Pre-registered criteria (§4 steps 3 and 4)
 
-⚠ **Naming note:** §4 step 3 calls for an *"abandonment criterion"*; §10 defines
+⚠ **Naming note — RESOLVED 2026-08-25.** §4 step 3 of the doctrine called for an
-**RETIREMENT**. They are the same criterion under two names; §10 is the referent.
+*"abandonment criterion"* while §10 defined **RETIREMENT**: the same criterion under two
+names, with §10 as the referent. The jurist ruled one word with one meaning, and the
+harmonization ran after the beacon (§5b, §7). The doctrine now reads *retirement*
+throughout; *abandonment* stands only where **§6 of the trial-09 design** owns it, in its
+own sense about the jester form.
 
 **REGENERATION** — permitted ONLY on a demonstrable implementation error, verified
 against this filed rule. **Not because the output is disliked.** A re-run against the
 same recorded `outputValue` is legitimate; a re-run against a later pulse is a new draw.
 
-**RETIREMENT (abandonment)** — only on mechanical failure: does not fire; fires
+**RETIREMENT** — only on mechanical failure: does not fire; fires
 constantly; or produces gradeable in-genre findings despite §9.
 
 **NOT grounds for retirement:** being uncomfortable, being frequently wrong, being
@@ -261,21 +265,58 @@ normalization point, and it is in the code.
 
 ## 5b · Owed after the 25th, non-blocking
 
-**`[FIX]` — 'abandonment' → 'retirement' throughout the fool's doctrine.** The jurist
+✅ **`[FIX]` — 'abandonment' → 'retirement' throughout the fool's doctrine. DONE
-owns the mismatch (§4 step 3 says *abandonment*, §10 defines *RETIREMENT*) and rules that
+2026-08-25**, after the beacon fired, as this clause required. The jurist owned the
-the fool's own doctrine should read **retirement**, one word with one meaning —
+mismatch (§4 step 3 said *abandonment*, §10 defines *RETIREMENT*) and ruled that the
-*abandonment* is the word §6 of the trial design owns, with a specific sense about the
+fool's own doctrine should read **retirement**, one word with one meaning — *abandonment*
-jester form. Naming rather than silently harmonizing was correct; the harmonization is a
+is the word §6 of the trial design owns, with a specific sense about the jester form.
-`[FIX]` **after** the beacon, so no edit touches this rule before it fires.
+Naming rather than silently harmonizing was correct.
+
+**Executed as a censused edit, not a blanket replace.** All 24 `abandon*` occurrences in
+the fool tree were counted and read in context first: **9 were doctrine and changed**
+(2 in the v2 draft, 5 here, plus this clause); **13 in the trial-09 family were left
+untouched**, being §6's own criterion; **1 in `input-dependence-01`** is ordinary English
+about the void of a numbering; **1 in `FOOL-BONES-2026-08-25.md`** is the dated record of
+what was owed. Prior wording is preserved in place at every changed site rather than
+overwritten — REVIEWED-125 ruled on the v2 draft's text, and an untraceable edit drifts a
+ruling's subject from its artifact.
 
 **The mumble-hook answer** (v2 §8) — clock-governed, event-checked, residual burst
 sensitivity declared rather than claimed away. The daemon alternative to be **costed, not
 dismissed**. A build decision, not a governance one. Also after the 25th.
 
-## 6 · What has NOT happened
+## 6 · What had NOT happened — as of filing, 2026-08-22
 
-- The target pulse has **not** been fetched. No near-future pulse has been fetched.
+⚠ **SUPERSEDED IN PART, 2026-08-25.** The first two bullets became false the moment the
-- No bones have been derived. No soul has been generated.
+derivation ran, and a governance document asserting stale current state is the failure
+Constraint 4 forbids. They are preserved verbatim-struck rather than deleted, because
+they are the **pre-registration record** — what this document claimed *before* the beacon,
+which is the entire point of having filed it early. Current state lives in
+`FOOL-BONES-2026-08-25.md`.
+
+- ~~The target pulse has **not** been fetched. No near-future pulse has been fetched.~~
+  → **Fetched 2026-08-25 ≈12:38Z**: pulse `2026-08-25T12:00:00.000Z`, chain 2, index 1917365.
+- ~~No bones have been derived. No soul has been generated.~~
+  → **Bones derived 2026-08-25**, once, commit `5694b925`. **No soul generated** — that
+  remains true, and §7 of the doctrine is unrun.
 - `~/CLAUDE.md` has **not** been touched (PENDING-150, unbundled).
 - Nothing has been implemented of §8, §8a or §9 — the status line is confirmed free but
   not built.
+
+---
+
+## 7 · Post-beacon edits to this rule — the audit trail
+
+This document's worth rests on having been **filed and pushed before the beacon
+timestamp**. Every edit made after 2026-08-25T12:00:00Z is listed here, so that property
+stays auditable instead of eroding one silent correction at a time.
+
+| date | what changed | authority | did it govern the derivation? |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 2026-08-25 | `abandonment` → `retirement`: §4's alias and naming note, §5b marked done | jurist ruling recorded in §5b, which itself scheduled the change *after* the beacon | **no** — the word naming a criterion, never the criterion |
+| 2026-08-25 | §6 marked superseded in part | Constraint 4, honest degradation | **no** — §6 is a status claim, not a rule |
+
+⚠ **Nothing in §1, §2, §2a, §3, §5 or §5a has been edited.** Those are the clauses that
+governed the derivation, and they stand exactly as they stood when it ran. This is not an
+assertion of good intent: it is checkable, and was checked — `git diff` was read hunk by
+hunk against the pre-edit commit to confirm no hunk falls inside them.