governance: seven rulings that existed only in a narrative are now in the register

REVIEWED.md ended at 86 while seven decisions had been reached and never written
down. The count of rulings owed could not be answered from the register: it was
23 never-ruled, not the 26 the wake digest reported, and three of the difference
were AUTHORIZED items whose headings simply omit their PENDING number.

Placed: REVIEWED-87 (verbatim from its filed ruling) through -93, plus -94, the
jurist's ruling on the PENDING-106 scope objection. Five of the seven were
RECONSTRUCTED from a session record because the INC-2026-07-28-01 package has no
filed ruling document — every other jurist gate this cycle filed one. The jurist
read all seven against its own account and confirmed them; three (88, 92, 93) now
carry a Provenance line recording that they are checked reconstructions and naming
what was NOT recovered. PENDING-101's reasons for striking two of three findings
are gone and no line recovers them.

Closed: PENDING-99, -105, and -106. 106 was closed by SPLIT rather than whole —
its own text named an open half (the kind-(a) census), and marking it done would
have retired authorized work by bookkeeping.

Filed: PENDING-108 (the ruling document is filed only when someone remembers —
12 of 13 packages did, and the one that did not is the package touching Constraint
#1), -109 (that census, carrying its evidence, needing a date not an
authorization), -110 (REVIEWED-N and PENDING-N are independent sequences that now
collide; REVIEWED-89's own text says "DOCKETED on PENDING-89" meaning two
different things).

Corrected, jurist-caught: three claims of "eight days" came from reading a date
out of an external incident identifier. One day, and for the reconstruction, the
same day — which makes PENDING-108 worse, not better: one day was enough to lose
four things permanently.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AB3Kryoy6b1pm2Nz1DYdLh

PENDING.md

@@ -908,7 +908,7 @@ The verdict mark was tightened by the same logic: `✓ warranted` beside a silen
 
 ---
 
-## PENDING-99 — The quoted tier accepts 3 of 17 human-verified citations, and the largest single cause is a full stop
+## PENDING-99 — The quoted tier accepts 3 of 17 human-verified citations, and the largest single cause is a full stop (CLOSED 2026-08-06 — REVIEWED-87 placed; @3 built and governing; Q2 carried to PENDING-100)
 **Date:** 2026-08-05
 **Tag:** [PROPOSAL] — routes to the **jurist**: `fidelity_equivalence@N` bumps require jurist ratification (V0 Ruling §2.2), and the fold-list is closed by construction.
 **Summary:** Run against the phase-2 Mauss gold — 17 citations a human read, cited and audited in March, 0 fabricated — the ratified quoted tier verdicts `GUARANTEED` on **3 of 17**. The failures are almost entirely ordinary scholarly quotation practice, not corpus defects; the single largest contributor is a **terminal full stop the citing human added when truncating**, worth 5 of the 17 on its own.
@@ -945,7 +945,7 @@ The four causes are not one kind of thing, and that is the substance of the ask:
 
 **Files affected:** none touched. Evidence reproducible from `chamber-library` canonical `essai-sur-le-don-mauss.md` (sha `2889709555f2…`) + the phase-2 round files in the vault + `engine/verify_quote.py`, `engine/fidelity.py`.
 **Jurist package:** `studium-engine/docs/quoted-tier-acceptance-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-05.md` (commit `c67586d`) — self-contained, five gate questions Q1–Q5 with executor leans. Verbatim containment proven mechanically before filing: **16/16 quoted clauses contained · 9/9 inversion-built controls absent · INSTRUMENT VERIFIED**. Every cited path re-verified in session.
-**Awaiting:** Steward routing to the jurist. **Filed ≠ sent** — this line is the send-state marker; update it when relayed.
+**Awaiting:** Nothing. **RULED 2026-08-06 — REVIEWED-87 placed** (ruling filed verbatim, `studium-engine/docs/quoted-tier-acceptance-JURIST-RULING-2026-08-05.md`). Q1 authorized on engine grounds + functional analogy, explicitly NOT chamber alignment; `fidelity_equivalence@3` built, governing, 22 checks. Q2 carried to the chamber side as **PENDING-100**, which remains open. This line still read *"Filed ≠ sent"* the day after the item was ruled on — the send-state marker was never advanced, which is the PENDING-108 class in its smallest form. *(Corrected 2026-08-06: first written as "eight days", from the executor misreading the external incident identifier `INC-2026-07-28-01` as our own filing date. One day. See the correction note under PENDING-108.)*
 
 ---
 
@@ -1035,7 +1035,7 @@ Three findings from 2026-08-03/04/05 sit squarely inside Q1 and Q4 and are alrea
 - **Census 01/02** (`~/dotfiles/claude/governance/fool/`): the firing record divides by **whether a human is in the invocation path**. `resolve_archived_source` is healthy 349/349 with **zero** log entries; `verify-before-compose` fired exactly twice; studium `verify-quote` had **no production caller at all** until 2026-08-05. Directly Q1(a)-vs-(b).
 
 **Files affected:** none — read-only pass by construction.
-**Awaiting:** Executor dispatch is given; the **Phase 1.5 blocker** needs the steward. Findings return here as new PENDING items for jurist ruling.
+**Awaiting:** Nothing on the brief itself. **RULED 2026-08-06 — REVIEWED-88 placed:** findings (1) and (3) STRUCK, finding (2) STANDS. ⚠ The jurist's *reasons* for striking (1) and (3) are not preserved in any record and were not recoverable at reconstruction — if they carry precedent they must be re-elicited, not inferred. The brief's larger yield was the steward's reframe (design-transfer, not repo-audit), which belongs to the L2 design note and is tracked there, not here.
 
 ## PENDING-102 — The brief hardened the report's hedged hypothesis into fact, and both AI parties did it in the same direction
 **Date:** 2026-08-05
@@ -1058,7 +1058,7 @@ Three findings from 2026-08-03/04/05 sit squarely inside Q1 and Q4 and are alrea
 
 **Recommendation:** no mechanism proposed here. The checkable question for the jurist: should a claim relayed from an external primary source carry a **modality-preservation requirement** — the hedge quoted verbatim or the claim marked as strengthened-by-the-relay?
 **Files affected:** none.
-**Awaiting:** jurist ruling; docket entry on PENDING-89.
+**Awaiting:** ⚠ **One thing, and it is not a ruling.** RULED 2026-08-06 — REVIEWED-89 placed: Q1 (modality preservation on relayed external claims) AUTHORIZED narrowly; Q2 docketed on PENDING-89, with the (c) disposition recorded as NOT established. **The Q1 requirement is now in force and lives nowhere** — it is a standing obligation whose only home is a REVIEWED entry, which no reader consults before relaying a claim. That is precisely the doc-only-control shape PENDING-106 measured and PENDING-109 will census. It needs a home in doctrine (`~/CLAUDE.md` §Epistemic Discipline is the natural site, which makes it `[ESCALATE]`, steward's hand) or it will be a rule nobody meets.
 
 ---
 
@@ -1104,11 +1104,11 @@ Three findings from 2026-08-03/04/05 sit squarely inside Q1 and Q4 and are alrea
 
 **Recommendation.** Not a lock. The cheap, honest first move is **detection**: have the wake compare each governance file's tail against what the previous wrap recorded writing, and report divergence. Silence about a concurrent writer currently reads as absence of one.
 **Files affected:** none — read-only pass.
-**Awaiting:** steward direction on whether detection is wanted before any mechanism is designed.
+**Awaiting:** A **date**, not an authorization. **RULED 2026-08-06 — REVIEWED-93 placed:** authorized to proceed to a design brief, detection before mechanism — establish whether and how often collisions occur before any guard is sized. ⚠ Reconstructed disposition: the record confirms *authorized-to-proceed* but does not independently confirm that the detection-first ordering was ruled rather than carried over from this item's own recommendation. Treat the ordering as the executor's, not the jurist's, until confirmed.
 
 ---
 
-## PENDING-105 — Q5 (a question Q1–Q4 do not cover): our compactor is the actor
+## PENDING-105 — Q5 (a question Q1–Q4 do not cover): our compactor is the actor (CLOSED 2026-08-06 — REVIEWED-92: withdrawn by the executor; G15's binary stands)
 **Date:** 2026-08-05
 **Tag:** [PROPOSAL]
 
@@ -1122,11 +1122,11 @@ Three findings from 2026-08-03/04/05 sit squarely inside Q1 and Q4 and are alrea
 
 **Prior art it joins, not duplicates.** The 2026-08-05 limit written on the containment instrument — *containment verifies that what you quoted is accurate; it cannot verify that you quoted what matters* — is the same defect on the selection axis rather than the modality axis. Both are the actor grading its own summary.
 **Files affected:** none.
-**Awaiting:** jurist. This one touches the authorization model's evidence base, hence PROPOSAL.
+**Awaiting:** Nothing. **WITHDRAWN 2026-08-06 — REVIEWED-92 placed.** Conceded by the executor on inspection: the condition the proposal rested on was derived from PENDING-103, and PENDING-103 does not exemplify the class — `writer.ts` ships and does not perform the check, making it an undocumented gap under G15's existing binary, not a deferral. A category derived from a misclassified instance is a laundering slot. Do not revisit without an instance that genuinely exemplifies the class.
 
 ---
 
-## PENDING-106 — Documents describe our gates as stronger than the gates describe themselves
+## PENDING-106 — Documents describe our gates as stronger than the gates describe themselves (CLOSED 2026-08-06 — instance applied + verified; the class carved out to PENDING-109, not buried)
 **Date:** 2026-08-05
 **Tag:** [HARDENING]
 
@@ -1156,6 +1156,14 @@ Three findings from 2026-08-03/04/05 sit squarely inside Q1 and Q4 and are alrea
 
 **Bearing on the open half (kind (a) census):** this is now **one document, three overclaims, one of them the load-bearing clause** — a materially stronger prior than the single instance the item was filed on. It does not settle instance-vs-pattern; it raises the expected yield of the census.
 
+### CLOSED 2026-08-06 — steward-directed, and closed by SPLIT rather than whole
+
+**Verified against the substrate, not the ledger.** The Symmetria ledger's line *"PENDING-106 — doc FIX applied"* is a record; it was checked rather than believed. The clause in `~/_Dev/chamber-library/CLAUDE.md:90` now reads *"the read is a PROTOCOL, and the hook is a speed-bump under it, not an enforcement of it"*, carries the `⚠ CORRECTED 2026-08-06 (PENDING-106, jurist-authorized FIX)` marker, and enumerates all three overclaims plus the once-per-file mechanism finding. Landed in `bb68e3f`, *"[FIX] CLAUDE.md: the verify-before-compose clause overclaimed the hook three ways"*. **Unpushed at time of closing** (chamber-library ahead 1).
+
+**Why split rather than closed whole.** This item's own text names an *"open half"* — the kind-(a) fleet census, authorized under the INC package's Q4 and never run, with no date. Marking the whole item CLOSED would have retired authorized work by bookkeeping, which is the failure PENDING-4 above documents in the opposite direction (an item advertising itself as open for 4½ months because its completion lived in the body, not the header). The instance is done; the class is carried to **PENDING-109** with its evidence intact, so that exactly one item is open for exactly the work that remains.
+
+**Ruling record:** the Q4 authorization and the item split are drafted as **REVIEWED-91** in `~/dotfiles/claude/governance/REVIEWED-drafts-2026-08-06.md`, awaiting steward placement. The wider-than-authorized scope of the applied FIX (three overclaims corrected where one was named) is flagged above for objection and is **not** absorbed by this closing.
+
 ---
 
 ## PENDING-107 — Constitutional Constraint #1 says "cannot" and there is no mechanism; the executor's restraint is the only thing enforcing it
@@ -1195,3 +1203,109 @@ Three findings from 2026-08-03/04/05 sit squarely inside Q1 and Q4 and are alrea
 **Awaiting:** steward + jurist. Independent verification requested before any action.
 
 ---
+
+## PENDING-108 — A jurist ruling is filed as a document only when someone remembers; the one that was not is the most constitutional of the set
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-06
+**Tag:** [HARDENING]
+
+**Summary:** `/jurist-package` mandates that a returned ruling be filed verbatim as its own `*-JURIST-RULING-<date>.md`; across the 13 packages authored since the skill existed, 12 were and one was not — the INC-2026-07-28-01 cross-repo package, whose rulings had to be **reconstructed the same day they were ruled**, from a session memory, in the executor's wording, for the steward to check.
+
+> **CORRECTED 2026-08-06, jurist-caught, and the correction strengthens the item.** This summary first read *"reconstructed eight days later."* False. `INC-2026-07-28-01` is the **UK AI Security Institute's own incident identifier** — an incident of 2026-07-28 — and the executor read a date out of an **external identifier** and used it as our timeline anchor. The package's own footer gives the real sequence: report published 2026-08-04, read in full 2026-08-05, package filed 2026-08-05, ruling acted on 2026-08-06, reconstruction 2026-08-06. **Same day, not eight.** Three instances propagated from the single misread (here, PENDING-99's `Awaiting:` line, and the drafts file); all corrected, none silently. Per `removing-a-claim-is-not-removing-the-reliance`, the test is not whether the phrase is gone but whether the conclusion still needs it: **it does not, and the corrected fact is worse for us.** "Eight days" was carrying an argument about *decay over time*. What actually happened is that **one day was enough** to make five of seven blocks reconstructions with four gaps that could not be recovered at all — the jurist's reasons for striking PENDING-101's findings (1) and (3) among them. The unfiled ruling does not degrade slowly; it is unreconstructable almost immediately.
+
+**How this was found.** The steward asked why no jurist package had been filed for the INC work. The premise was wrong — a package *was* filed, and it is among the most rigorous in the set (432 lines, G1–G16 grounding, consequence-trace, scope boundary, containment proof of its own quotations). What is missing is the **return leg**: the ruling document. `~/.claude/skills/jurist-package/SKILL.md:73` prescribes it in as many words — *"When the jurist's ruling returns (steward-relayed), file it verbatim as its own `*-JURIST-RULING-<date>.md`, then append to the package"* the Addendum.
+
+**The measurement, and it refuted the executor's first two framings.**
+
+| Set | Packages | Ruling record exists | No record |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| `FOR-JURIST` convention (2026-07-03 → 07-20, before the skill) | 23 | 5 | **18** |
+| `JURIST-PACKAGE` convention (2026-07-20 → 08-05, after the skill) | 13 | **12** | **1 — the INC package** |
+
+Method: every `*JURIST-PACKAGE*.md` / `*FOR-JURIST*.md` under `~/dotfiles/claude/governance`, `chamber-library/docs`, `studium-engine/docs`, stem-matched against every `*JURIST-RULING*.md`, with unmatched packages then re-checked for an in-package `Addendum` recording the ruling. 45 packages, 31 ruling documents, 5 Addendum-only, 19 with no ruling record anywhere.
+
+**Two executor errors, both caught by measuring, both recorded rather than quietly dropped.**
+1. **Asserted a fleet-wide pattern from n=5.** The executor told the steward that "every ruling that got filed had a build waiting on it" and that the INC case was the anomaly — generalised from five items, before running any fleet check. The first check returned **24 unpaired packages**, refuting the fleet-wide claim outright. This is `ATTRIBUTED-A-CAUSE-WITHOUT-RUNNING-THE-AVAILABLE-COUNTERFACTUAL` from 2026-08-06, recurring the same day it was banked, in the item that reports it.
+2. **The refutation was then itself too coarse.** 24 unpaired split into 5 Addendum-only and 19 with no record — and the 19 stratify almost perfectly by naming convention, i.e. by whether the skill existed yet. Only the second cut showed what was actually true.
+
+**What survives, stated at the strength the evidence supports.**
+- **Checked:** post-skill, 12 of 13 packages filed the ruling. The skill works; this is a *prevention* instance, not only a failure report.
+- **Checked:** the single post-skill exception is the cross-repo constitutional package — the one whose rulings touch `~/CLAUDE.md` Constraint #1, the differently-biased-checkers doctrine, and the modality-preservation requirement.
+- **NOT established:** why. The executor's conjecture — that a ruling gets filed when a *build* consumes it, and the INC rulings authorized mostly decisions rather than artifacts — is now an n=1 story about a single case. It is recorded as a conjecture and **must not** be used as the rationale for a mechanism.
+- **Bounded historical loss, not a backlog:** for the 18 pre-skill packages the verdict survives in `~/REVIEWED.md`; what is gone is the *reasoning*. Not proposed for repair.
+
+**Why this is worth a mechanism despite the unknown cause.** The detector's value does not depend on knowing why the step is skipped. It fires on the condition — package with no ruling record — regardless of mechanism, and the condition is exactly what makes a ruling unreconstructable later. It also already **has its demonstrated negative instance**: the check above was run before this item was filed, on real data, and it found the INC case plus 19 historical ones. Per the standing L2 requirement, a bound that ships without a demonstrated firing is documentation.
+
+**Options.**
+- **(a) Nothing; rely on the skill's prescription.** Rejected on the evidence: the step was prescribed, proven, performed twice in the same directory days earlier, and still skipped on the most important item.
+- **(b) A detector in `governance-drift-check.py`.** Report any `*JURIST-PACKAGE*.md` older than N days with no matching `*JURIST-RULING*.md` and no in-package Addendum. Runs at every wake, in the invocation path that does **not** require a human to remember — the census-02 property that distinguishes a gate that fires from a gate that is merely available.
+- **(c) File-before-act.** The ruling document is written before any act the ruling authorizes. The say–do seam applied to rulings.
+- **(d) Make placement the forcing function** — no PENDING item may be marked CLOSED without a REVIEWED reference. Rejected as filed: it enforces bookkeeping order, not record existence, and PENDING-106 was closed today with its REVIEWED entry still only drafted.
+
+**Recommendation: (b) with (c).** (b) is mechanical, needs no judgement, costs milliseconds, and is honest about being a *detector* — it makes an absence visible, it does not prevent one. Say so at the point of use, per Constraint #4 and PENDING-107's lesson: this is detection, not enforcement, and it must never be described as the latter. (c) is the discipline (b) surfaces the breach of. Detection needs no authorization; changing the skill's prescribed order does.
+
+**Pre-registered falsifier.** If, over the next 10 packages, the detector fires zero times *and* no ruling is later found missing by other means, the check is measuring a fixed historical incident rather than a live class, and should be retired rather than kept as reassurance. Record the count; do not let a silent check accumulate into evidence of health.
+
+**Files affected:** `~/dotfiles/scripts/governance-drift-check.py` (new check); `~/.claude/skills/jurist-package/SKILL.md` (the (c) ordering); none if DEFERRED — the finding above stands on its own.
+**Awaiting:** Steward authorization for (b) and (c). The measurement is already done and needs none.
+
+---
+
+## PENDING-109 — The kind-(a) doc-vs-mechanism fleet census: authorized under Q4, never scheduled
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-06
+**Tag:** [HARDENING]
+
+**Summary:** The class half of PENDING-106, carved out so that closing the applied instance did not retire authorized work by bookkeeping — a fleet-wide comparison of each gate's own header/docstring against the document that advertises it, bounded to kind (a).
+
+**Provenance.** PENDING-106 measured one instance and found the doc over-claiming against an honest mechanism. Its Q4 was put to the jurist in `INC-2026-07-28-01-cross-repo-findings-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-05.md` Part VIII and **authorized 2026-08-06** — recorded as drafted **REVIEWED-91**, `~/dotfiles/claude/governance/REVIEWED-drafts-2026-08-06.md`, awaiting steward placement. PENDING-106 is CLOSED as of 2026-08-06 on its applied instance only; this item carries the remainder.
+
+**Scope, bounded explicitly and not to be widened silently.**
+- **In:** kind (a) — the document over-claims against a mechanism that describes itself honestly. Method: for each gate, compare its own header/docstring against the document that advertises it. Mechanical; needs no new instrument.
+- **Out:** kind (b) — doc and mechanism both over-claim. There is no honest party to compare against, so the method does not reach it. A different instrument is owed and is **not** authorized here.
+
+**Prior, strengthened since filing.** The one document examined in full carried **three** overclaims about a single hook, not one — and the third (*"opens with a Grounding section that QUOTES the ratified sections it builds on"*) is both the clause that makes the requirement substantive **and** the clause with no mechanism behind it. That raises the census's expected yield. It does not settle instance-versus-pattern, and this item must not be written up as though it had.
+
+**What this item needs and does not have:** a date. It was authorized-to-proceed and left as "later", which is the state PENDING-108 exists to make visible.
+
+**Files affected:** none yet — read-only census; findings return as new items.
+**Awaiting:** Steward — a date, not an authorization. The authorization is given (Q4).
+
+---
+
+## PENDING-110 — `REVIEWED-N` and `PENDING-N` are independent sequences that now collide, and a bare number no longer identifies an item
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-06
+**Tag:** [HARDENING]
+
+**Summary:** The two registers were never tied to each other; they have drifted into a range where the same integer names two unrelated items, and today's placement of REVIEWED-88 through -93 made six such collisions at once — including a sentence in REVIEWED-89 that reads *"DOCKETED on PENDING-89"*, in which the number 89 appears twice meaning two different things.
+
+**How it surfaced.** The steward read "REVIEWED-88 through -93" as `PENDING`-88 through -93 — items from late July, a long way back in the register — when the entries in question are the newest in the file, lines 921–951 of 960. The misreading was correct behaviour on an ambiguous reference. The executor had written the ambiguous reference repeatedly in the same session without noticing.
+
+**Measured, not estimated.**
+- **88** numbered `REVIEWED` headings; **33** carry no `PENDING-N` on the heading line.
+- **6** of those 33 have a same-numbered `PENDING` in the register. For most (11, 12, 78, 81, 82) the numbers happen to name the *same* item — harmless. For **REVIEWED-86 / PENDING-86** they name entirely different items (*differently biased checkers* vs *the jurist cannot read the constitution it design-gates*) — a live collision.
+- **REVIEWED-88…93**, placed today, each *do* name their PENDING in the heading — but their numbers collide with **PENDING-88…93**, six unrelated open items (skill-harvest FIX lane · Q3 correlation review · first L2 transfer · Vignette 1a · idle ladder · `getChainsContainingSeq`).
+- **~140** bare `REVIEWED-N` citations exist in `chamber-library`/`studium-engine` code comments, docstrings and test names.
+- **3** bare headings (78, 81, 82) are the exact three `wake-digest.py` over-reports as unruled, because it matches on the literal string `PENDING-N` in the heading. One defect, two symptoms.
+
+**Root cause.** `REVIEWED-N` was never defined as *the ruling on `PENDING-N`*. Early entries were coincidentally aligned (REVIEWED-11 ↔ PENDING-11, -12 ↔ -12), which taught the alignment as an expectation without ever making it a rule; the sequences diverged and never recovered. `~/CLAUDE.md`'s own template says `## REVIEWED-[N] — [Matches PENDING-N title]` — *matches the title*, not the number, which is precisely the gap.
+
+**Options.**
+- **(a) Renumber so the sequences align.** REJECTED. It rewrites a historical record — one entry of which is GPG-sealed — to fix a legibility problem, and silently breaks every commit message, code comment and `engine/fidelity.py` citation pointing at a REVIEWED number.
+- **(b) Convention: never write a bare register number again.** Always `REVIEWED-89 (PENDING-102)`. Costs nothing, needs no migration, and most headings already do it.
+- **(c) Backfill the headings.** Bounded to those where the number names a *different* item, plus the three the digest miscounts — not all 33, most of which are unambiguous (REVIEWED-29 states outright it has no PENDING number).
+- **(d) Teach `wake-digest.py` to read the body, not only the heading,** for `PENDING-N`.
+- **(e) Migrate the ~140 code citations.** REJECTED. They sit in docstrings and comments where surrounding context disambiguates; the change is large, mechanical, touches gate code, and buys little.
+
+**Recommendation: (b) + (c) + (d).**
+(b) is the rule. (c) is one-time and small, and is the steward's hand — `REVIEWED.md` is not the executor's file. (d) is the durable part and the reason to do all three: **it is the only one that does not depend on anyone remembering.** Per PENDING-108, filed hours earlier in this session, a prescribed-and-proven step still got skipped on the most important item — so of a convention, a backfill and a detector, weight the detector.
+
+**Check that it worked.** After (c) and (d): `wake-digest.py`'s open-item count should fall from 21 to 18, matching the hand cross-reference already run today. If it does not, the digest is matching on something else again and (d) is incomplete.
+
+**Also owed, same surface, not yet done.** The seven entries placed today carry no provenance marker; five are executor reconstructions from a session narrative, and `REVIEWED.md` presents all seven with equal authority. The one-line `**Provenance:**` addition drafted in `~/dotfiles/claude/governance/REVIEWED-drafts-2026-08-06.md` remains unplaced. Same class as this item: **the register does not say on its face what it is.**
+
+**Files affected:** `~/dotfiles/scripts/wake-digest.py` (d — executor); `~/REVIEWED.md` (c + the provenance lines — steward's hand); `~/CLAUDE.md` §Steward-Jurist Interface template (b, if the convention is made doctrine — `[ESCALATE]`).
+**Awaiting:** Steward authorization. (b) is agreed in conversation 2026-08-06; this item records it and asks for (c) and (d).
+
+---