[FIX] REVIEWED-134: suspend automatic grading, with a replacement terminus

The steward's ruling of 2026-09-04 amends REVIEWED-123 condition 2. Applied as
data, in the deferral record's own vocabulary: no code changed, and
governance-drift-check.py:513 stays excluded from repair and unexamined, as the
ruling's Notes require. The counter still counts and still fires at 84; what a
firing INSTRUCTS is now recording, not grading.

Condition 3 replaces the terminus that suspension removed. Grading at 84 was the
ladder hold's only terminal bound, so the suspension carries its own: the joint
PENDING-178/-179 ruling, or 2026-10-15, whichever falls first. That bound is given
a trigger rather than a memory — a dated DEFERRED-DECISION block whose discriminator
states, in its own text, that firing returns the falsifier for a steward ruling and
does not resume grading (condition 4). PENDING-168 is the reason it is not left to care.

N-now at suspension, measured live by the trial's own method: 65 = 41 real + 24
mumble (36.9%), distance 19. Unchanged from 2026-09-03 in count and composition.

Left knowingly wrong, and recorded rather than fixed: the /wake-up trial line still
reads "Graded automatically at 84 transcripts". It is the trial's own intervention
text, frozen by its own terms and by REVIEWED-123 condition 1; rewording it would
confound the measurement the suspension exists to protect.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01X3L79vgAnt1x2kxvf23Qt7

claude/governance/REVIEWED-134-grading-suspension-2026-09-04.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+# REVIEWED-134 — application record: automatic grading suspended
+
+**Placed:** 2026-09-04 · **Ruling:** REVIEWED-134 (steward-originated), AUTHORIZED, amending
+REVIEWED-123 condition 2 · **Applied by:** executor, same day.
+
+This file is the application of a ruling, not a proposal and not a new item. It exists because
+REVIEWED-134's condition 3 replaces a terminus that lived in another ruling, and a replacement
+bound with no carrier is the trap REVIEWED-123 condition 5 names in the opposite direction.
+
+## What was suspended
+
+REVIEWED-95's ladder-trial falsifier no longer grades on the transcript counter reaching 84.
+The counter is **not modified**: `governance-drift-check.py`'s `transcripts` trigger still counts
+`TRANSCRIPTS.glob("*.jsonl")` and still fires at 84, and that site stays excluded from repair and
+unexamined per the ruling's Notes. What changed is what a firing **instructs** — recording, not
+grading. Nothing in the counting path was touched, and no code was changed to apply this.
+
+**N-now at suspension, measured live 2026-09-04 by the trial's own method:** 65 = 41 real +
+24 mumble (36.9%). Distance to threshold, 19. Count and composition both unchanged from the
+2026-09-03 reading.
+
+## The replacement terminus, carried verbatim from the ruling
+
+> **This suspension lapses on the joint PENDING-178 / PENDING-179 ruling, or on 2026-10-15,
+> whichever falls first.**
+
+And the ruling's condition 4, which governs what the lapse does:
+
+> **Lapse returns the question for a ruling, not for resumption.** On the lapse date automatic
+> grading does not resume by default. The falsifier returns for a steward decision that states,
+> at minimum, which population it would grade over.
+
+The 30-day review point of 2026-09-16 (REVIEWED-123 condition 2) **stands and is not discharged
+by this ruling**. The N-now reporting obligation survives unchanged and is enriched: N-now is
+reported at wake **with its real/mumble split**.
+
+## The lapse, given a trigger rather than a memory
+
+<!-- DEFERRED-DECISION: ladder-grading-suspension-lapse
+     since: 2026-09-04
+     owner: steward
+     trigger: date 2026-10-15
+     discriminator: REVIEWED-134 condition 3's backstop terminus. Firing does NOT resume automatic grading and does NOT grade — per condition 4 the falsifier returns for a steward ruling that states, at minimum, which population it would grade over (PENDING-147 leg (i) note 3: the two stores are permanently divergent; 21 of the baseline's 64 transcripts were gone before preservation ran, 43 survive, and the 14% baseline is no longer fully auditable). Resolve this block EARLY if the joint PENDING-178 / PENDING-179 ruling lands first — that ruling is the primary terminus and this date is only the backstop, per "whichever falls first". -->
+
+## What this application deliberately did not touch
+
+- **`governance-drift-check.py`** — no edit of any kind. The suspension is carried as data in the
+  deferral record, which is what the instrument's vocabulary is for. Line 513 stays unexamined.
+- **The `/wake-up` SKILL.md trial line** — it still reads "Graded automatically at 84 transcripts",
+  which REVIEWED-134 has now made false. It is the trial's own intervention text and is frozen by
+  its own terms and by REVIEWED-123 condition 1; rewording it would confound the measurement the
+  suspension exists to protect. **A knowingly stale claim, left stale for a stated reason.**
+- **The joint PENDING-178 / PENDING-179 ruling** — condition 6 reserves the unit, the window, the
+  recurrence mechanism, the session predicate, and the seeding-and-store question to it.
+- **REVIEWED-134 condition 8's recorded disagreement** — three preservation dates where two are
+  claimed, two archive paths, a four-file gap. Query before the joint ruling, not before this one.