session 2026-08-26: PENDING-163/164/165 + five amendments; prior-art search built

Session record: the record did not contain the decision.

Filed: PENDING-163 (+3 amendments), PENDING-164 (jurist-drafted, placed verbatim,
+ executor addendum and build record), PENDING-165 (+1 amendment). Rulings
REVIEWED-130 and REVIEWED-131 placed by the steward.

Built: preserve-transcripts.py (PENDING-147 (i), 43 transcripts read-back proved),
two pre-commit fixes, the hook-directory allowlist in governance-drift-check.py,
and prior-art.py + the prior_art MCP tool (PENDING-164 (c)+(d)).

The finding: a steward decision that rewrote seventeen commits of history
(chamber-library 0677e8a, retiring LFS) is absent from the entire authorization
record, so both AI parties independently recommended adopting the mechanism it
retired. governance_search over 313 items returns one hit; grep over the raw files
returns zero before today.

Six self-referential instrument failures and three false zeroes, one of which was
caught before it was believed — and the only reason was that the jurist
pre-specified what the instrument had to return.

MEMORY.md rotated (prior Active Session demoted verbatim, checked for carried
claims first). 6 KG lines incl. one genuine transfer: the 2026-08-25 lesson about
declaring a limit rather than manufacturing a column fired unprompted on a
different instrument in a different item. One skill-harvest proposal, whose subject
is that today's own build ignored the routing table measurement it had open.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01NvZAKSf9aqratbqHbU9LK5

claude/memory/skill-harvest-register.md

@@ -565,3 +565,13 @@ floor question in the executor's favour.
 ⚠ **Caught by doing it, not by inspection.** The trap was noticed only while writing the
 rotation code and asking what happened to the line. Nothing in `/wrap-up` would have surfaced
 it, which is the argument for the step.
+
+## Proposed 2026-08-26 wrap — awaiting steward
+
+| # | kind | target | proposal | firing moment | routing |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| — | patch | `governance-drift-check.py` (detector, **not** a skill) | **PENDING-164 (d) shipped as a CLI requiring executor recall — the exact class the routing table measures at ~10%, and at 0% for the 53 skills needing recall.** `prior-art.py` exists and works; nothing makes it fire. Proposed: the drift-check reports any `PENDING-*` item filed since its last run whose title or summary names a term with **commit history and zero prior register mentions** — the asymmetry `prior_art` already computes. ⚠ **Honest limits, stated before building:** (a) it fires **after** filing, not before — but before the steward rules, which is where the LFS error actually cost something; (b) extracting "the mechanism named by this item" is the same interpretive step that defeated the census, so a keyword heuristic will over- and under-fire; (c) it therefore catches the *loud* case (a named tool) and not the quiet one. **Filed as a detector because the alternative is a discipline the routing table already measured at ~10%, and today's build ignored that measurement while the item recording it was open in the same session.** | **at every `governance-drift-check.py` run** — i.e. every wake, already a ritual | mechanical detector (the strong tier) |
+
+⚠ **Why this is a `[PROPOSAL]` and not the FIX lane.** It adds a *required check* to a governed instrument rather than changing what that instrument records, and the first clause of the classification test — "what the executor may do without asking" — is arguable either way. The lane's own instruction is *when in doubt, propose*. It also touches `governance-drift-check.py`, which REVIEWED-95's falsifier leans on; the ladder trial is frozen under REVIEWED-123 and **adding a reporting section is not obviously outside that freeze's spirit even though it is outside its letter.** That doubt alone routes it here.
+
+⚠ **The self-referential note, since it is the point.** This proposal exists because the executor built (d) as a recall-dependent CLI **on the same day, in the same item, as the register line recording that recall-dependent capabilities fire at ~0%.** The measurement was in front of me and the build ignored it. That is not a discipline failure to be fixed with more care — it is the routing table's own thesis, demonstrated at its own expense.