diff --git a/PENDING.md b/PENDING.md
index 595086d..727320e 100644
--- a/PENDING.md
+++ b/PENDING.md
@@ -4352,3 +4352,53 @@ Applied here: the window supplies at most *something happened · nothing happene
 **This touches nothing pre-registered.** The axes are ratified, the seed rule is filed, the draw is well-defined under every option. Only the placement of a later decision changes.
 
 **Awaiting:** steward, on the content question — four options, after the beacon. **Not before the soul.**
+
+### AMENDMENT 6 — 2026-08-22 — the adjudication-path criterion supersedes "checkable in principle"; the material is the SESSION
+
+*Jurist correction, received via the steward. Recorded as a correction rather than as a fifth option.*
+
+#### The separation that is most of the answer
+
+| | | status |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Material** | what it remarks on | **the only open question** |
+| **Register** | how it sounds | settled — the soul, §7 |
+| **Occasion** | when it speaks | settled — the refresh tick |
+
+#### Corpus: NO — settled on what nine trials established
+
+**A fool reading `PENDING.md` produces claims about `PENDING.md`, and claims about the record are the executor's genre.** That is how the checker kept being rebuilt.
+
+#### ⚠ Type-only was an overcorrection, and is withdrawn
+
+*Something happened / nothing happened / something failed* **makes a mood ring — atmosphere within a fortnight.** And it contradicts the steward's own precedent: canned strings keyed to event type cannot point anyone in the right direction, and the capybara did that repeatedly. **The buddy had two paths, and the one that worked was the one watching the session.**
+
+#### ⚠ THE CRITERION IS NOT "CHECKABLE IN PRINCIPLE" — IT IS WHETHER AN ADJUDICATION PATH EXISTS
+
+**This supersedes the test the executor offered in AMENDMENT 5(b)** (*"could someone check it and find it wrong?"*), which was the jurist's earlier line and is now withdrawn by its author.
+
+> *"PENDING-4 has been open since April"* — **a path exists**: open the file. Once a path exists the trio will walk it, the fool acquires a truth value, and it is a checker again.
+>
+> *"You've used the word structural nine times this hour"* — **no path.** Nobody files a session observation. No forum, no ruling, no record it could corrupt. **It can be wrong and cost nothing — which is exactly the safety §1 claims for the position.**
+
+**So the exclusion of standing state changes its grounds.** Not excluded because it is checkable; excluded because **the docket has a forum and the session does not.**
+
+**The live session is the material. The docket is not.** What is being worked on right now, in front of the steward — not what is on file. The model supplies the words, in the soul's register, about the session.
+
+#### What this settles for free
+
+**The empty-window problem dissolves.** It arises only if material means *governance events since the last tick*. **A session in progress always has material — the steward is there and something is happening** — so no window is empty, readings 1 and 2 converge, and **≈2.3/day means what it claims.** Between sessions nothing fires, which is correct: no audience.
+
+#### ⚠ The residual risk, named by the jurist and carried here
+
+**Session-as-material sits one step from commentary on the steward's reasoning, and commentary on reasoning is a checker in a thin disguise.** The guards are already specified and must hold **together**: one line · the soul's register rather than governance prose · no filing path · and the dump stat guaranteeing it is reliably blind to something. **If any one slips, this is the door it comes back through.**
+
+**Executor observation:** the adjudication-path criterion and §9's no-filing rule are **the same guard seen from two sides** — §9 removes the path, and the criterion is what explains why removing it is load-bearing rather than merely tidy. That is a reason to treat §9's non-contestable status as carrying more weight than it appeared to.
+
+#### ⚠ EXECUTOR: my own AMENDMENT 5(d) is WEAKENED by this correction
+
+I argued that option 4 concentrates all risk in one irreversible act, because the soul would supply the entire utterance — and that the content decision therefore belongs between §4 steps 5 and 6.
+
+**Under session-as-material the soul supplies the register and the session supplies the material, so the risk is distributed again and the argument loses most of its force.** It does not vanish — the decision still determines what the soul must carry — but it no longer concentrates the fool's whole value in a single generation. **Recorded rather than left standing, since an argument that keeps its conclusion after its premise moves is the failure this item has now logged twice.**
+
+**Awaiting:** the open questions below, put to the steward.