[PROPOSAL] PENDING-121 Amendment 2 — branch (i) taken, verification requested, and my "nothing breaks" corrected

The steward chose branch (i) and took the jurist's offer. Both recorded.

The correction matters more than either. Amendment 1 §C argued the rename is cheap
because the key has zero consumers — a measurement that stands and was positive-
controlled — and concluded "nothing breaks". That conclusion was scoped to code
consumers and is too broad. Censused across both repos and the governance record,
all file types: the name sits inside the RATIFIED hash-locality principle at
graduation-spec.yaml L39-L40, in the sentence individuating the third instance; in
voice_manifest's cross-reference at L19, which REVIEWED-53 deliberately kept as one
of its two reading grains; and in REVIEWED-53's own text, which cannot be edited
because a ruling records what it ruled.

So the rename touches ratified constitutional-adjacent text, and the steward accepted
(i) partly on the phrasing I have now withdrawn. Two questions go back to the jurist
rather than being decided here: whether that ratified sentence must be amended, and
whether rename is needed at all versus rescoping in place with an explicit scope field.
I hold no lean between them and did not manufacture one.

binding_surface was checked as a candidate name and rejected: it is already the
runbook's own key, so it would have been the ninth shared-name collision this corpus
has logged. canonical_binding_surface and canonical_binding are clean.

The verification request is anchored rather than restated — file sha256 plus exact
line numbers, so a mismatch is a result and the jurist is not asked to take my word a
second time. No mechanism is drafted; a refuted quotation should cost a paragraph.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01A35wiD55yRHj5U1ECZAX4t

PENDING.md

@@ -1827,7 +1827,28 @@ The package proposed **five sibling entries.** REVIEWED-53 appears in no Part, i
 
 **§E — Open offer, the steward's to take.** The jurist could not open `graduation-spec.yaml`, `conversion-runbook.yaml` or the R0 contract, so **Parts I.1–I.4 are executor testimony in that ruling, not substrate — and conditions 2 and 4 rest on them.** The jurist offers to attempt `governance_read` before the ruling is recorded.
 
-**Awaiting:** steward's branch decision on condition 2 → optional jurist substrate verification → revised Part IV drafted to conditions 1–4 → placement gate.
+**Awaiting:** ~~steward's branch decision on condition 2~~ → jurist substrate verification (IN FLIGHT) → revised Part IV drafted to conditions 1–4 → placement gate.
+
+---
+
+### AMENDMENT 2 — 2026-08-08, steward decisions taken, and a correction to Amendment 1 §C
+
+**§A — CONDITION 2 BRANCH DECIDED: (i), rescope and rename.** Steward, 2026-08-08. Consequences now in force: Q3's lean holds — the spec's entry becomes the **single enumerative authority**, `catalogue.yaml` **enters** the enumeration, and the runbook keeps the procedure and **cites rather than restates, in the same commit, not as a promise**. Condition 1's co-movement invariant must then hold **across repos**, which is a stronger claim than the engine-only version and will be stated as such.
+
+**§B — THE JURIST'S OFFER TAKEN.** Steward, 2026-08-08. Request filed as `~/_Dev/chamber-library/docs/PENDING-121-substrate-verification-REQUEST-2026-08-08.md` — **anchored, not restated**: file sha256 + exact line numbers for every clause, so a mismatch is itself a result and the jurist is not asked to take my word twice. Targets: `graduation-spec.yaml` L19–L20 / L29–L40 · `conversion-runbook.yaml` L239–L256 / L270 · `r0-reading-index-contract.md` §3 / §3.1 / §5, plus `engine/reading_index.py`'s `emit` docstring if reachable. **Condition 2 turns on `catalogue.yaml` actually being in the runbook's `chamber:` list; condition 4 turns on R0 §3 and the `emit` docstring.**
+
+**§C — ⚠ CORRECTION TO AMENDMENT 1 §C: "nothing breaks" was too broad, and the steward accepted (i) partly on that phrasing.** The 0-consumer measurement stands and was positive-controlled; **the conclusion drawn from it did not.** It was scoped to *code* consumers. Censused today across both repos plus the governance record, all file types — `engine_source_binding` also appears:
+
+- **`graduation-spec.yaml` L39–L40 — INSIDE THE RATIFIED HASH-LOCALITY PRINCIPLE**, in the sentence individuating the third instance, stamped `[RATIFIED 2026-07-10 — jurist ruling (PENDING-47)]`.
+- **`graduation-spec.yaml` L19** — `voice_manifest`'s *"see `engine_source_binding` below"*, which **REVIEWED-53 preserved deliberately** as one of its two reading grains.
+- `~/REVIEWED.md` L471 — REVIEWED-53's own text. **Not editable; a ruling records what it ruled.** The rename therefore puts the live key permanently out of step with the language of the ruling that created it.
+- Six docs, plus the memory layer.
+
+**So the rename is not confined to declared data — it touches ratified constitutional-adjacent text.** Handleable by supersession with the co-movement rationale restated and a superseded-by-rename note, but **not what "nothing breaks" implies.** Two questions routed to the jurist rather than decided here: whether the ratified L39–L40 sentence must be amended (its *content* is untouched — three instances, same individuation; only the third's name changes), and **whether rename is needed at all** versus rescoping in place with an explicit `scope:` field. ⚠ **I hold no settled lean between those two and am not manufacturing one.**
+
+**§D — Name availability, checked against the corpus's eight-instance shared-name log.** `canonical_binding_surface` **0** · `canonical_binding` **0** · ~~`binding_surface`~~ **unavailable — it is the runbook's own key** (`conversion-runbook.yaml` L249); using it would have been the **ninth** instance · ~~`source_binding`~~ unavailable, collides with the `source_sha256`/`source_file_sha256` family the principle exists to keep distinct.
+
+**§E — Nothing of the mechanism is drafted.** The ruling's *"then, and only then"* is respected: a refuted quotation should cost a paragraph, not a design.
 
 ---
 ## PENDING-122 — What a green fleet certifies, and what it does not: no suite validates live binding