[PROPOSAL] PENDING-132 (fr retraction as its own act), PENDING-133 (split F4), 131 Addendum 3

132: three citations leaving a fixture is a change to what every recall number is
measured against — it gets a dated decision, not an inference a later reader has
to reconstruct from an addendum about something else. Retraction only; it does
NOT mark L926, which stays blocked on the disambiguator argument.

133: F4 is one marker over two dispositions, and it is fixture VOCABULARY — no
offsets, no schema unlock, no cross-repo consent. Unbundled from (c) so a cheap
correction is not parked behind an expensive negotiation. It is also what lets
the fr cell be re-tagged correctly rather than merely shortened.

131 Addendum 3: (b) splits by mechanism (b1 addressable / b2 inline) rather than
by exposure, and b1 runs as an identification pass that writes nothing — the
reading survives any vocabulary (c) declares, which retires the 120-char proxy
too. (c) filed cross-repo, since a chamber-locked schema is locked by a document
the studium charter cannot unlock. Posture until (c): reports and records, no
writes.

PENDING.md

@@ -2644,3 +2644,60 @@ Measured against the three contested cases, from `corpus/mauss-phase2-reanchored
 **Awaiting:** Steward authorization on (b), (c)-as-PROPOSAL, and §6. **Nothing in the corpus has been changed by this addendum or by Addendum 1.**
 
 ---
+
+## PENDING-132 — Retract L926's three citations from the fr grounded gold
+**Date:** 2026-08-10
+**Tag:** [PROPOSAL]
+
+**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.
+
+**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.
+
+**Contrast, deliberately included so the retraction is not read as a rule about nesting:** instance 8 (L1551) carries *"Le charpentier dit à Arthur :"* **and** closes on Mauss's own conclusion *"Il n'y eut plus de 'haut bout' et partant, plus de querelles."* — the carpenter's speech deployed as evidence inside Mauss's argument. **Instance 8 should be RETAINED.** P7 tagged both `F4-nested-attribution` and treated them alike; the test separates them.
+
+**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.
+
+**⚠ 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.
+
+**Awaiting:** Steward authorization.
+
+---
+
+## PENDING-133 — `F4-nested-attribution` is one marker over two dispositions
+**Date:** 2026-08-10
+**Tag:** [PROPOSAL]
+
+**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)).
+
+**Filed separately, and specifically NOT bundled behind PENDING-131 (c).** This is a **fixture-vocabulary** finding. It needs no sub-line character offsets, no unlock of the chamber-side LOCKED schema, and no cross-repo consent. Parking it behind (c) would hold a cheap correction hostage to an expensive cross-repo negotiation — the same failure mode as parking the fifteen addressable blockquotes behind an addressing change.
+
+**Evidence:** L926 and L1551 both wear `F4-nested-attribution` in `corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml` and both were retained as grounded stratum-B. Measured today, they differ at the disposition level, not in degree — L926's citations quote the nested voice first-person with no attributing clause; L1551's carries the host's attribution and the host's conclusion around the nested speech. One marker, two answers to *may this ground a claim?*
+
+**Why it matters beyond these two:** F4 currently reads as a *difficulty* marker (it sits beside F8-long-periodic, F5-qualified, D-b-elliptical, all of which are difficulty). Half its instances are an *admissibility* judgment wearing a difficulty marker's clothes. Any recall figure computed over a set stratified this way mixes "hard but valid" with "should have been refused", and no threshold ruled against §6.2 can distinguish them.
+
+**Scope:** re-tagging is a reading pass over the fr cell's F4 instances and the en set's B4 — small, bounded, and it lets the fr cell be **re-tagged correctly rather than merely shortened**. Naming is the steward's; the split is what is proposed.
+
+**Awaiting:** Steward authorization.
+
+---
+
+## PENDING-131 — ADDENDUM 3: (b) re-split along the mechanism seam; (c) is cross-repo
+**Date:** 2026-08-10
+
+**§1 — (b) SPLITS BY MECHANISM, NOT BY EXPOSURE.** Exposure-ordering was proposed when the class looked uniform; Addendum 2's diagnosis cuts it better:
+- **(b1) line-addressable cases** — the fifteen unmarked blockquotes in Mauss and their equivalents elsewhere. Curation gap; the existing mechanism reaches them.
+- **(b2) inline cases** — Ranaipiri, the 21 guillemet candidates, whatever the other sources hold. Mechanism gap; blocked on (c) **everywhere, not only in Mauss**.
+
+**§2 — (b1) RUNS AS AN IDENTIFICATION PASS THAT WRITES NOTHING.** The expensive, irreplaceable work is *identifying* which spans serve another voice — that is reading, and it survives any vocabulary (c) declares. The cheap, vocabulary-dependent part is writing the field. Separating them dissolves the "runs twice" objection for (b1): record spans and readings now, mark after (c) rules, and (c) may then rename the field for free.
+
+⚠ **This also dissolves the 120-char proxy**, which Addendum 1 used to sort 21 candidates from 191 scare-quotes and explicitly declined to defend. Separating served testimony from `« mana »` is precisely what the reading pass does. The proxy was standing in for the work this makes primary — so it is retired rather than refined.
+
+**§3 — (c) IS CROSS-REPO, AND NO STUDIUM RULING CAN AUTHORIZE IT.** `studium/meta@1` is locked by the **Chamber Library constitution**, a governed document; the studium charter's D-1 cannot unlock it. Filed as cross-repo and awaiting the chamber side, or it sits indefinitely as a studium PROPOSAL that no studium ruling reaches. Its scope is now an **addressing capability** (sub-line offsets), not a vocabulary — and per PENDING-133 the F4 split is explicitly **not** bundled into it.
+
+**§4 — §6 BUILT** (`scripts/gold_intersection.py`, studium-engine `569e14c`), steward-authorized, with all three conditions: the blocking/reporting ambiguity removed from the specification wording; positive controls on **every invocation** (four synthetic + one live non-empty check, failing to `INSTRUMENT NOT VERIFIED` / exit 2 rather than to clean); granularity declared line-level and printed on every clean result. Verified on the motivating case — L926 reports 4 intersections, exit 0, and tells the reader the overlap may be correct to break. Five chavruta paratext/silence anchors report **UNCHECKED**, never clean.
+
+**§5 — STANDING POSTURE UNTIL (c) RULES: identification passes, reports and records; no writes to the corpus.** Three diagnoses moved today and two reversed, and every reversal was free because nothing in the corpus had changed. That is the reason to hold the posture, not caution for its own sake.
+
+---