[PROPOSAL] PENDING-124 package filed; recommendation (d) withdrawn

A false citation in the package, caught by the mechanical quote pass and
recorded rather than repaired quietly: I quoted the two-valued phrase as
REVIEWED-104 text when it came from the jurist advisory. Second time this week
a citation of mine pointed at the wrong entry.

The verification record also states what the instrument cannot do: it cannot
tell a quotation from proposed text in blockquote formatting, so its "2
unverified" is not a verdict.

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

PENDING.md

@@ -2079,7 +2079,23 @@ Three cases, all discriminated: a rule ran → existing output already says so,
 
 **Files affected:** `reference-verification-ladder.md` (a named instrument) and/or `~/CLAUDE.md` §Epistemic Discipline — ⚠ the latter is `[ESCALATE]`, steward's hand, per Constitutional Constraint 1.
 
-**Awaiting:** Jurist design-gate, then steward authorization.
+**Awaiting:** Jurist design-gate → **PACKAGE FILED 2026-08-08**, `~/dotfiles/claude/governance/three-valued-checks-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-08.md`.
+
+---
+
+### AMENDMENT 1 — 2026-08-08, package filed; ⚠ I WITHDRAW MY OWN RECOMMENDATION (d)
+
+**§A — (d) is wrong on its own terms.** I recommended generalizing **R0 §3** rather than minting doctrine, to avoid a second home. That ground still holds; the recommendation does not. **R0 is a D-1 engine spec-note** — and of the nine instances, two live in **chamber** declared data and one in a **global git hook**, neither of which a D-1 document can govern. Generalizing R0 would have created precisely the second home it was meant to avoid: a rule stated where it cannot reach two-thirds of its own instances.
+
+**§B — The correct parent is Constitutional Constraint 4** — *"The system must report its own limits. Silent failures are architectural violations"* — which is constitutional, above D-1, and already binds all three. **That narrows the question to Q1: is this Constraint 4 APPLIED, or extended?** Applied ⇒ one ladder entry, no constitutional change (the shape condition 4 of the PENDING-121 ruling took for the promotion rule). Extended ⇒ `[ESCALATE]`, steward's hand.
+
+**§C — Evidence: 2 → 9 instances, FIVE of them pre-existing** (R0 §3 · `ingest_gate`'s four states · `test_retrieve`'s named skip · `known-failures.json`'s `stale = red` · chamber `source_verified`/`source_excluded`). **A shape implemented five times independently, in three subsystems, before anyone named it, is discovered rather than imposed** — and that, not the count, is the argument.
+
+**§D — ⚠ The defect recurred INSIDE the fix, and the package records it.** My first implementation treated per-check skips and suite-level `cannot-assess` alike, making *"NOT A CLEAN PASS"* permanent — the jurist's own Q1 warning that a signal which never varies stops being read. Caught by running it. **Any ratification must carry the two-strengths distinction or it re-creates what it fixes.**
+
+**§E — ⚠ A false citation, caught by the mechanical pass and recorded rather than repaired quietly.** The package first quoted *"a check that reaches outside its own repo cannot be two-valued"* **as REVIEWED-104 text.** It is not in the register — it came from the jurist's **advisory** on 122/123. **Second time this week a citation of mine pointed at the wrong entry.** The quote-verification pass is what caught it, which is the argument for running it rather than trusting the draft.
+
+**§F — Q3 and Q4 are surfaced AGAINST my own leans:** four names for one concept across subsystems may be the drift this register keeps ruling against, and I have no principled line; and the chamber tool fleet was **never censused** for this shape, so *provisional pending a chamber census* would be well-founded.
 
 ---