[PROPOSAL] PENDING-124 package filed; recommendation (d) withdrawn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

claude/governance/three-valued-checks-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-08.md

@@ -59,7 +59,11 @@ can be absent.
 > So: **three states — `bound` / `drifted` / `cannot-assess`** — and `cannot-assess` must be
 > distinguishable in the fleet summary, never folded into green.
 
-And, in the same ruling, the observation that prompted this package:
+⚠ **CITATION CORRECTED before relay — the passage that prompted this package is NOT in the
+register, and I first cited it as though it were.** The observation below came from the jurist's
+**advisory on PENDING-122/123**, relayed by the steward; the *placed* REVIEWED-104 does not contain
+it. Verified by search: the phrase appears in `~/PENDING.md` (where I recorded it) and in this file,
+and **nowhere in `~/REVIEWED.md`.** It is quoted here as **advisory, not as ruled text**:
 
 > Note where else that requirement just appeared. PENDING-123's acceptance test independently
 > concludes that the valid-but-never-matching rule *'needs a third state, not a pass or a fail.'*
@@ -67,6 +71,11 @@ And, in the same ruling, the observation that prompted this package:
 > two-valued.** That is a candidate for doctrine rather than for restating per item — I'd rather
 > rule it once than condition it three more times.
 
+*Recorded rather than quietly repaired: a package that mis-attributes a quotation to a governed
+record is the exact failure this instrument exists to prevent, and the second time this week I have
+pointed a citation at the wrong entry. The mechanical quote-verification pass caught it — which is
+the argument for running that pass rather than trusting the draft.*
+
 ### I.3 — `reference-verification-ladder.md`, the silent-net entry (steward-held; executor testimony)
 
 > **A silent safety net is uninformative, not reassuring** — a fallback / fail-loud branch /
@@ -244,5 +253,26 @@ until a chamber census runs* would be well-founded and I would take it as a task
 
 ---
 
+## Quote-verification record
+
+Every blockquote in this document was mechanically checked against `~/CLAUDE.md`, `~/REVIEWED.md`,
+`~/PENDING.md`, the verification ladder and the R0 contract, on 2026-08-08. **Six passages; four
+verified verbatim; two residuals, both intended:**
+
+- the **advisory** passage in I.2 — correctly not in any governed record, and labelled as advisory
+  after the pass caught me citing it as ruled text;
+- the **doctrine statement** in III.1 — my own proposed normative text, in blockquote formatting
+  because it is a proposal, not because it is a quotation.
+
+⚠ **The instrument cannot tell a quotation from proposed text in quote formatting.** It reported
+"2 unverified" and a reader who stopped there would have found a defect that is not one. Stated so
+that the number is not mistaken for a verdict.
+
+⚠ **R0 §3 verified against `~/PENDING.md` first** (where I had quoted it) and separately confirmed
+present in the R0 contract itself. The contract remains unreachable by any `governance_read` key,
+so for the jurist it is still testimony — the verification is mine, not theirs.
+
+---
+
 *Filed by the executor, 2026-08-08. Companion: `~/PENDING.md` PENDING-124. No code runs from this
 document. The instances it cites are landed and pushed; the doctrine is not.*