diff --git a/REVIEWED.md b/REVIEWED.md index 8f1b5d2..70941cc 100644 --- a/REVIEWED.md +++ b/REVIEWED.md @@ -2536,4 +2536,80 @@ dir reads as absence, not as safety. 8. **Scope of this ruling.** The line numbers, the census table, the fixture contents and the append-and-recount demonstration are executor testimony from a script I cannot run. What I verified directly: REVIEWED-122 condition 5 verbatim, PENDING-110 option (c) verbatim, PENDING-145 and PENDING-146 verbatim, and the behaviour of `governance_item` at §7. -**If AUTHORIZED:** Implement (a) per conditions 1–4. Report the enumeration in full, agreements included. Do not touch placed headers. Cross-reference PENDING-146 in the commit and in the item's kin list. \ No newline at end of file +**If AUTHORIZED:** Implement (a) per conditions 1–4. Report the enumeration in full, agreements included. Do not touch placed headers. Cross-reference PENDING-146 in the commit and in the item's kin list. + +## REVIEWED-133 (PENDING-137) — Cell-constant markers: ratified as its own amendment, with the direction of the change recorded +**Date:** 2026-09-01 +**Decision:** AUTHORIZED — (b) as corrected, with three conditions. (a) and (c) rejected. +**Rules on:** PENDING-137, per REVIEWED-121 point 2. + +**Notes:** The reasoning is sound and is not in question: a marker constant across a cell +cannot stratify within it, and the literal reading leaves the fr/de stratification carrying +no information. The item's own superseded-in-place correction — that an amendment is +constituted by its disclosure and cannot be dated to a day on which none occurred — is +adopted as the governing principle here. Recorded because it bears on how much weight this +ruling can carry: two of its conditions were corrected by the executor after I ruled from a +partial read of the file, and the third rests on a fact only the executor established. + +1. CONDITION — **Delete `undisclosed_days_in_force`; rule the endpoint as the file has it.** + `date_in_force: 2026-08-07` and `date_disclosed: 2026-08-14` stand, on the file's own + stated ground — 2026-08-14 is the first disclosure of the narrowing anywhere, and the + register entry is a disclosure even though the amendment is constituted at ratification. + The derived field is removed rather than corrected: a computed span pasted beside the two + inputs that produce it goes stale while its inputs stay right, which is the defect class + and not an instance of it. The span is read off the dates. + ⚠ **This corrects my own draft, which would have moved `date_disclosed` to the ruling date + and overturned a documented choice while presenting itself as refreshing a stale number. + I had read to line 70; the two date rows sit at 127–128.** + +2. CONDITION — **The amendment records the DIRECTION of the change, marked as inference.** + Under the literal reading, A:B ≈ 1:1 is unsatisfiable in fr and de; under the narrowing it + is satisfiable. The amendment converts an unpassable bar into a passable one, and it was + made after the cell was seen — the direction REVIEWED-116 point 1 guards. It is ratifiable + because the ground is structural (a constant carries no information) and would hold + identically had the effect run the other way. + ⚠ **The effect cannot be measured, and the disclosure must say so.** The fr cell records + only post-narrowing markers — F5 5/11, F8 3/11, F3 3/11, D-b 1/11 — and cross-lingual and + archaic register appear nowhere, because this narrowing is what removed them. The + before-state is therefore an **inference from the D-1 block's own grounds** (every fr pair + cross-lingual by construction; all of Mauss 1925 French), not a rerunnable measurement. + Record it in that form. **This is why the disclosure is required rather than optional: the + substrate can no longer supply what the ground conceals.** + +3. CONDITION — **The en-cell claim is attached to `taggable: false`, not left in the item.** + The decision asserts cross-lingual and archaic register *"would earn B in the en cell, + where they are not constant"* — untested in force, since no en pair has ever been tagged. + The note goes on the `taggable` line itself, so whoever flips it meets the untested claim + at the moment it takes force. Left in the item it is a condition honoured by remembering. + +4. **(a) REJECTED.** Folding this into PENDING-134's disclosure dates it wrongly and binds it + to a doctrine it does not depend on. REVIEWED-121 point 9's ruled resulting state names + **amendments**, plural; (b) satisfies that and (a) does not. + +5. **(c) REJECTED** on the item's own grounds, and listed only so the option set does not hide + the literal reading. It defeats the stated purpose of stratification, and nothing suggests + the reading itself is wrong. + +6. **This closes the PENDING-134 asymmetry, and that is part of its point.** PENDING-134 was + held four days and required an amendment with dated disclosure; this act governed the fr + cell undisclosed for seven. Both now enter by disclosed amendment, which is the stated + ground the item asked for. + +7. **Scope, and the limits are not incidental to this ruling.** PENDING-137 read verbatim; the + D-1 block verified against `corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml` lines 1–33 and found identical, + dropped `# ` markers included. **I did not read past line 70**, which is why condition 1 + was wrong as first drafted. §6.2, §14.1 and REVIEWED-116 / REVIEWED-121's points are read + **only as quoted in this item** — no independent read. Condition 2 does not depend on + REVIEWED-116's wording; it stands on the disclosure's completeness. ⚠ The stratum + distribution in condition 2 is executor testimony from rows I did not open. + ⚠ **`governance-mcp.py --selftest` was failing at the time of the first draft** — five + undeclared mutating calls in `wake-digest.py`, from yesterday's REVIEWED-131 build, since + declared and passing at 62 controls (`cc97888`). The read surface this ruling was drafted + from was unverified while it was being drafted, and was repaired by the executor rather + than detected here. + +**If AUTHORIZED:** the three edits to `corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml` — delete line 132; extend +the PENDING-137 entry at 127–131 with the direction and its epistemic status as siblings to +the existing fields; attach the en-cell note at line 370 on the `taggable: false` line. Then +place the amendment. Then PENDING-134's disclosure, whose before-state is now complete. Then +`ratio_A_to_B` re-derived **once**, per REVIEWED-116 point 5. \ No newline at end of file