diff --git a/PENDING.md b/PENDING.md index c4a9fdc..de40b3b 100644 --- a/PENDING.md +++ b/PENDING.md @@ -2651,6 +2651,8 @@ Measured against the three contested cases, from `corpus/mauss-phase2-reanchored **Summary:** fr instances 6, 12 and 16 cite Tamati Ranaipiri's first-person testimony and are bound as citations of Mauss; they should leave the grounded gold set. +**⚠ SELF-STANDING: THIS ITEM RETRACTS UNDER EITHER READING OF F4, and that is the ground it is proposed on.** Stated first because an earlier draft led with the whose-proposition test — which is PENDING-134's doctrine, **unruled** — so the item cited a gate that had not been decided as its own basis. It does not need one. The two live readings of F4 disagree about the marker in general and **converge on L926 in particular**: under the claim-side test it retracts because its three citations assert Ranaipiri's propositions rather than Mauss's; under the stricter reading — that §6.2's double omission disqualifies F4 from stratum B outright — it retracts because it carries F4 at all. **Ruling PENDING-134 either way leaves this item's outcome unchanged**, which is why it can be taken now and independently. + **Why this is its own item and not a consequence of PENDING-131.** Three instances leaving a fixture is a change to the thing every recall number is measured against. PENDING-131 Addendum 2 supplies the *finding*; it must not supply the *decision*. A later reader asking why the fr cell shrank should find a dated act with a stated basis, not an inference they have to reconstruct from an addendum about something else. **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. @@ -2661,7 +2663,7 @@ Measured against the three contested cases, from `corpus/mauss-phase2-reanchored **⚠ 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. +**Effect if authorized:** fr distinct spans 11 → 10, bound instances 15 → 12. **⚠ NO REPLACEMENT RATIO IS STATED, and the omission is deliberate.** An earlier draft read *"stratum 1 A : 9 B → 1 A : 8 B"*. That is wrong twice over: under PENDING-134 the whole cell's tagging *basis* changes, not just its population, so `1:8` would be exactly as provisional as `1:9` — and **a number inside an AUTHORIZED item is far stickier than a number marked stale inside a proposal.** It will be quoted. **The ratio is VOID pending PENDING-134 and is re-derived ONCE, after the doctrine lands and dispositions are recorded** (REVIEWED-116 point 5). Every figure derived from the old baseline is already marked stale in `corpus/v2-en-span-narrowing-PROPOSAL-2026-08-10.yaml` (`a87fef5`). **⚠ This is a retraction, not a fence.** It removes three *citations* from a gold set. It does **not** mark L926 `role: quotation` — that remains blocked (PENDING-131 Addendum 1 §2: a line-granularity fence would refuse Mauss's attributing sentence, which is the disambiguator that makes the passage groundable in the first sense). The two acts are independent and only this one is proposed here. @@ -2672,6 +2674,13 @@ Measured against the three contested cases, from `corpus/mauss-phase2-reanchored ## PENDING-133 — `F4-nested-attribution` is one marker over two dispositions **Date:** 2026-08-10 **Tag:** [PROPOSAL] +**Status: WITHDRAWN by the proposer 2026-08-10, superseded by PENDING-134. NOT ruled, and deliberately NOT recorded as REJECTED.** + +⚠ **Why WITHDRAWN and not REJECTED — the distinction is load-bearing.** A REJECTED item is not revisited without new steward input, which would foreclose a marker split permanently. **The split may yet be the right remedy if PENDING-134 falls** — if the stricter reading carries and F4 is excluded from stratum B outright, the question of what F4 then names reopens. Foreclosing it is a cost with no benefit. Nor is this AUTHORIZED or DEFERRED: what happened is a withdrawal by the proposer before any ruling, an **executor act, not a steward one**, which is why it carries no REVIEWED entry. + +✅ **THE OBSERVATION THAT PROMPTED IT WAS SOUND — only the remedy was wrong.** Something *is* wrong with how F4 was applied, and this item found it. What it got wrong is that the fault is not in the marker (needing a split) but in the tagging having no claim-side step at all. A bare withdrawal would lose the finding along with the remedy; the body below stands unedited so it does not. + +⚠ **AND IT IS THE DAY'S CLEANEST INSTANCE OF THE FAILURE IT DESCRIBES, kept legible on purpose.** This item was filed about a marking pass that selected on the wrong property — display formatting rather than voice — and was itself drafted **without reading the §5 row it was about**. Had its author opened F4's row and §6.2's enumeration first, neither the "two jobs" diagnosis nor the marker-split remedy would have been written. Preserved for the same reason the refuted Part III draft of the jurist package was preserved: the failure is more instructive than its absence, and in that case leaving it visible is what let the decisive counter-argument be found. **Summary:** Split F4 into two markers by whose proposition the claim asserts — attributed evidence inside the host's argument (groundable, hard) versus the nested voice's proposition asserted as the host's (refusable, §7.4(i)). @@ -2718,11 +2727,33 @@ Measured against the three contested cases, from `corpus/mauss-phase2-reanchored **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. +**Recommendation:** adopt as doctrine, dated. 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. +### ⚠ HELD 2026-08-10 by steward direction — not because the test is doubted, but on three conditions the drafting must satisfy first + +**H1 — RULE IT AFTER THE READ WORKS.** This amendment turns entirely on the exact wording of §6.2's enumeration and §5's F4 and F10 rows — on **both** sides of the argument. Those words are still the executor's testimony from the jurist's chair. **The four keys are registered but NOT YET SERVED**: `governance-mcp.py` builds its `FILES` map at import, so the running server holds the old eight-key map until the client restarts it (steward action; the file change is live on disk at `4c3758e`). Ruling a doctrine amendment on quoted text while the instrument built to let the ruling party check that text sits one restart away is the wrong trade for a few hours — **and the counter-argument being overruled is precisely the one that needs verbatim checking by the party overruling it.** + +**H2 — RATIFY NARROWLY: the nested-voice disposition test, NOT the general principle.** The package's headline is general — *a marker names a span property; the claim's treatment fixes the disposition*. That reaches **every row in §5**, and nobody has worked out what it does to F3, F5, F7, F8 or F10, all of which §6.2 pre-registers. **Ratify the nested-voice case; record the general principle as the ARGUMENT for it, never as ratified doctrine.** Same unbundling discipline that took F4 out of PENDING-131 (c): one worked case does not license the general form. + +**H3 — IT AMENDS A PRE-REGISTRATION, AND MUST SAY SO ON ITS FACE.** This is the part most likely to be lost in drafting, and it is the whole reason the amendment route was chosen over the reading route. A post-hoc amendment to a pre-registered scheme is legitimate **when disclosed** and worthless when not. The entry must record, explicitly: what §6.2 said before; what it says after; the date; and **that the amendment was made after the spans it reclassifies had been read.** + +Then §6.2's resulting state must be named, and there are two options: **(i) a pre-registration carrying one dated amendment**, or **(ii) re-registered as of 2026-08-10.** *Steward's lean: (i)* — cheaper and more honest than a restart, which would imply a clean slate the corpus does not have. + +⚠ **Standing consequence either way: any recall figure later reported from this fixture carries a note that stratum membership was amended post-hoc on 2026-08-10.** That note is what protects the number's credibility when someone asks whether the scheme was fixed in advance — and it is far harder to add retroactively than to write now. + +**Two further body requirements before ruling:** + +**(a) THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT AT FULL STRENGTH — not "an asymmetry was noted."** The design had **two** admission routes to stratum B and neither was used for F4: §6.2's parenthesised span-property construction, *used for F5 one item away in the same list* (`"qualified span (F5)"` — which would have admitted `"reported-speech span (F4)"`), and an explicit stratum-B clause in the §5 row, *used for F10* (`"included in stratum-B EN/FR gold"`). Two available mechanisms, both unused, is not an accident of enumeration. **Heard, and overruled.** Recorded at strength because if the test later yields a result both readers reject, this paragraph is what lets someone find the argument that predicted it. + +**(b) A DEFEATER CONDITION.** A DEFERRED item states conditions for reconsideration; an AUTHORIZED *doctrine* should state what would falsify it. Proposed: **a span on which the whose-proposition test yields a disposition that two independent readers both reject on reading.** Cheap to write, and it is honest degradation applied to doctrine rather than to instruments — which is the gap today kept exposing. + +**Inherited scope:** PENDING-133 Amendment 1's correction carries over — the pass this doctrine governs runs over **every fr grounded span (nine or ten), read for reported speech**, not over the two that happen to carry F4. The bound assumed P7's tagging was complete; nothing checked it. + +**Files affected:** `~/REVIEWED.md` (the doctrine entry, carrying H3's disclosure and (b)'s defeater) · `corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml` (re-tagging under whichever rule lands) · PENDING-131/132/133. + +**Awaiting:** Steward authorization, **after** the MCP restart makes §5/§6.2 independently readable (H1). ---