[FIX] Fool: make trials reproducible; file the 2025 correlation measurement

The Fool experiment was not reproducible. Trials 01-02 were run ad hoc: no
script, and of the run conditions only the model ID, MLX version, hardware and
enable_thinking survive. The prompt exists as paraphrase with quoted fragments;
temperature, top_p, max_tokens and seed were never recorded anywhere. Trial 03
could not have been run under trial 02's conditions.

The same failure destroyed the v1 Chamber's GPT-side protocol, discovered today:
it lived as configuration inside a hosted product, was updated in place, and is
gone. The Claude-side prompt from the same morning survives because it was a file
in a repository. A protocol that is not a file is not a protocol.

fool/run_trial.py makes every run a file — prompt hashed into the record, every
sampling parameter recorded including defaults, reasoning trace separated but
never suppressed, and an empty answer marked `degraded` rather than passing as a
finding of silence (trial 02's error, now structurally impossible). Trial 03's
prompt is reconstructed from the surviving fragments and says so in its own
PROVENANCE file: trial 03 is NOT a strict one-variable step from trial 02, and
the chain is clean only from here forward.

ADDENDUM-1 files the measurement the ESCALATE doctrine package states it lacks
("no such measurement exists"). The 2025 Chamber archive, read at steward
direction, shows mutual divergence in 3 of 3 pairs where the instruction was
comparable. Its value is that its parties were of matched capability, so their
divergence cannot be a capability-gap artifact — the arm these trials
structurally cannot produce. Scope held tight: this measures formation
independence between two commercial models. It does NOT answer Q3, the
jurist-executor pair, and the executor's lean there remains none.

Carried as disconfirming evidence: all five interpretive corrections today came
from the steward, not from the executor's own checking, and every one was a
census failure rather than a reading failure. A differently-formed reader of a
document is not positioned to catch those. Formation diversity addresses reading,
not scope.

Nothing applied. The parent package is unmodified; no ratified document edited.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WuMjg3ipEVa3n8CoSzoyvc

claude/governance/fool/prompts/trial-03-assumptions.PROVENANCE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Provenance — `trial-03-assumptions.txt`
+
+**Status: RECONSTRUCTED, not recovered. Read this before comparing trial 03 to trial 02.**
+
+## What happened
+
+Trials 01 and 02 were run without a harness. The prompt was composed inline and never
+written to a file. What survives is the record kept in the trial write-ups:
+
+From `fool-trial-01-2026-08-01.md`:
+
+> **Prompt:** form, not target — *"identify what this document ASSUMES but does not
+> ESTABLISH"*, with an explicit anti-contrarian clause (*"if you find nothing worth
+> saying, say nothing — inventing objections is worse than silence"*). No steer toward
+> any part of the document.
+
+From `fool-trial-02-2026-08-02.md`:
+
+> **Prompt change from trial 01:** added an **anti-echo constraint** — *"The document
+> contains a section in which the author states his own limitations. Do NOT list those
+> back. An assumption the author has already named is not a finding."*
+
+Those quoted fragments are the whole surviving record. The surrounding wording — the
+task framing, the ordering, whatever else was said — is gone.
+
+## What this file is
+
+The two quoted constraints, verbatim, set in a task framing reconstructed from the
+description "form, not target". It is a faithful reconstruction of the *recorded*
+content and an invented reconstruction of the *unrecorded* content.
+
+## The consequence, stated so it is not forgotten
+
+**Trial 03 is NOT a strict one-variable step from trial 02.** Two things differ: the
+document under test, and an unknown amount of prompt wording. Any comparison between
+trial 02 and trial 03 must carry that caveat.
+
+The chain is clean from trial 03 forward: this file is now hashed into every run record
+by `run_trial.py`, and any change to it produces a different hash and must be declared.
+
+## Why the loss is recorded rather than smoothed
+
+The same failure destroyed the v1 Chamber's GPT-side protocol — configuration held
+inside a hosted product, updated in place, unrecoverable. The Claude-side prompt from
+the same day survives, because it was a file. The lesson is not about either model. It
+is that a protocol which is not a file is not a protocol.
+
+Recorded 2026-08-02, at the point the loss was discovered rather than at the point it
+became inconvenient.