diff --git a/claude/memory/skill-harvest-register.md b/claude/memory/skill-harvest-register.md
index 3e50fbb..bca92ec 100644
--- a/claude/memory/skill-harvest-register.md
+++ b/claude/memory/skill-harvest-register.md
@@ -684,3 +684,11 @@ Regenerating the quality ledger showed 20 files moving `A-convention` → `+B-te
 **Not proposed:** a `/pdf-origin-classify` skill — `classify_pdf_origin.py` is scratchpad evidence for an unratified proposal; skilling it now would codify a method the jurist has explicitly **not** yet accepted (Q3's Instrument-B control is outstanding). Revisit only if V-DPDF ratifies.
 
 **Repo `CLAUDE.md` freshness (§1.6) — surfaced, NOT applied.** REVIEWED-83 shifts `chamber-library`'s governance posture (a new declared evidence kind; independence as a constitutional requirement) and would add `V-DPDF` to its vocabulary. Per the FIX-vs-PROPOSAL split one level up, a **governance-posture** change is surfaced for steward review rather than auto-applied — and here it is also **premature**: the spec text is not drafted and ratification is gated on the Q3 demonstration. Apply at ratification, not now.
+
+## New proposals (2026-07-29 wrap — awaiting steward)
+
+| Target | Kind | Proposal | Earned by | Status |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| `/jurist-package` | patch | **Mandate a mechanical verbatim-containment proof over every quoted passage, with a positive AND negative control, as a required step before filing** — not merely the existing prose discipline ("quote, never paraphrase"; "path-verify the reading list"). Run this session it caught **six** defects in a package I believed clean: five quotation-precision drifts and one **meaning-changing truncation** (§7's *"but ruled work, not tonight's"* rendered as *"but ruled work."* — a deferral turned into a commitment). The negative control is the load-bearing half: without it, a checker that always passes is indistinguishable from success. Checker at `scratchpad/verify_quotes.py`. | 2026-07-29; second instance of the class (2026-07-28 fabricated quote-ending in a Grounding section) | PROPOSED |
+| `/jurist-package` | patch | **Formatting convention: ratified text = `>` blockquote; PROPOSED text = fenced block, never a blockquote.** The containment checker flagged that my own proposed constitutional text sat in a blockquote visually identical to the ratified quotes around it — a reader (or the jurist) could take proposed wording for text already in force. One line in the skeleton; removes a whole class of ambiguity in the document type whose entire job is letting a repo-blind party tell the two apart. | 2026-07-29, found incidentally by an instrument built for another purpose | PROPOSED |
+| `/wake-up` §3 (Next move) | patch | **Before executing an inherited resumption point, grep the substrate for whether its premise is already settled.** Today's inherited step ("construct the corruption case and confirm the guard FLAGS it") assumed an open question that had been demonstrated on a real book 10 days earlier and *ruled* 5 days earlier. The wrap that banked it was written in good faith; a wrap can bank a step whose answer is already in the record. Cheap: one grep for the step's key term over the repo + PENDING/REVIEWED. Complements the existing substrate-check discipline, which covers *"is this still outstanding?"* but not *"was this ever open?"* | 2026-07-29 | PROPOSED |