[HARDENING] PENDING-179 AMENDMENT 1: jurist corrections, and the selftest control does not test its own claim

Five corrections from the jurist on the wrap, two operational, plus one new
measurement that supersedes this session's own origin claim.

The correction that matters: the wrap credited the handover's ordering "at
every point it was load-bearing". The gate's POSITION held; its CONTENT did
not. Gate 2a as specified was one arm, one transcript, expected 0 — run as
written it greens, because 22 of 24 mumbles return 0. The finding exists
because the specification was replaced with independent whole-population
ground truth plus an unrequested must-not-flag arm. "Follow the handover" is
the wrong lesson and the more comfortable one.

New, and it supersedes the 2026-09-03 origin record: the failing selftest
control does not test the claim on its label. Measured live on the actual
_tx[-14:-1] slice — 1 real session, 12 mumbles, and verdict `wrapped` comes
from 1 real session and 4 MUMBLES. The predicate `"wrapped" in _v` is
satisfiable by mumbles alone, so it would pass with zero real sessions in
the slice. OWED-1's wrong-subject family, inside the control that was meant
to be evidence about mumbles.

Still open, and recorded as open rather than reframed again: the date of the
control's first failing run. The archive reconstruction is not sound for it.

Operational for the next session:
  - unbundle the two acts, suspension first; the git init is a steward call
    and may wait, while the suspension has a firing distance (65/84)
  - the suspension MUST carry a replacement bound in the same act —
    REVIEWED-123 cond. 2's bound IS grading at 84, and suspending grading
    removes exactly that bound

Also: gate 2c's narrowing limitation moved into the item, since the item is
what gets ruled on.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01X3L79vgAnt1x2kxvf23Qt7

PENDING.md

@@ -6960,3 +6960,25 @@ That is a separate decidable unit; merging it here would reproduce the CLASS E d
 
 **Files affected:** none changed. `~/dotfiles/scripts/wake-digest.py` (`human_turns`, `previous_transcript`, selftest sample), `~/dotfiles/scripts/tarbuckle-invoke.py` (`newest_transcript`) are the sites a ruling would touch; `governance-drift-check.py:513` is **excluded on receipt** by the handover and was not examined for repair.
 **Awaiting:** Steward authorization. ⚠ **Nothing is blocked on this:** step 0 (preservation) ran and the evidence is safe; the repairs are correctly stopped, not stalled.
+
+### AMENDMENT 1 — 2026-09-04 — jurist corrections; and the selftest control does not test its own claim
+
+**Filed before any ruling on this item, so it is read with the parent rather than after it** (the PENDING-145 suppression case applies to addenda filed *after* a ruling; this is not one). Five corrections from the jurist, two of which change what tomorrow should do, plus one new measurement that supersedes a claim in the parent's own origin.
+
+**1. The credit in the parent's framing is misplaced, and the correction matters more than the compliment.** The record said the handover's ordering held *"at every point it was load-bearing."* **The gate's POSITION held; its CONTENT did not.** As specified, gate 2a was *one arm, one transcript, expected 0*. **Run as written it greens**: 22 of the 24 mumbles return 0, so a single sampled mumble passes with ~92% probability and the repair proceeds. The finding exists because the executor **replaced the specification** — ground truth taken independently of the function under test, across the whole population, with a second `must-not-flag` arm that was not asked for. ⚠ **"Handovers are load-bearing, follow them" is the wrong lesson and the more comfortable one.** The right one: *a gate's existence bought the chance to catch this; improving on the gate's specification is what caught it.* A reader who inherits the comfortable version will run the next gate as written.
+
+**2. Gate 2c's census limitation belongs here, not only in a wrap no ruling reads.** The parent reports controls named before execution and a `must-not-find` that fired, which reads as a clean controlled census. ⚠ **It was narrowed three times** — broad reference match, then governed-code-only, then enumeration-only. **Repeated narrowing can terminate by confirming the sites the predicate was built around.** The negative control and the stated blind spots bound that, and do not eliminate it. **Read 2c's "no additional consumers" as the weakest of the parent's three findings.**
+
+**3. NEW, and it supersedes the origin claim: the failing selftest control does not test the claim its label states.** Measured live 2026-09-04 on the actual `_tx[-14:-1]` slice:
+ · **slice composition: 1 real session, 12 mumbles**
+ · **verdict `wrapped`: 1 from the real session, 4 FROM MUMBLES**
+ · the control's predicate is `"wrapped" in _v` — **satisfiable by mumbles alone**, so it would pass with **zero** real sessions in the slice.
+⚠ **Its label claims "a real session reads as WRAPPED end-to-end."** Its test asks whether *any transcript whatever* drew that verdict. **This is OWED-1's wrong-subject family, inside the control that was supposed to be evidence about mumbles.** ⚠ **It also corrects the 2026-09-03 origin record**, which stated all 13 slice members were mumbles and that the failure was mumble-displacement. The slice holds a real session, and the pass/fail turns on `wrap_verdict` outcomes across an arbitrary population rather than on mumble density.
+
+**4. The date of the control's first failing run is STILL NOT ESTABLISHED, and this amendment does not establish it.** The jurist asked for it because a start predating 2026-08-25 would mean the mumble is not the only cause. A reconstruction over the preserved archive found **no date between 08-20 and 09-04 on which the slice held zero real sessions** — but that reconstruction is **not sound for this purpose**: manifest `source_mtime` is snapshot-time rather than current, and the verdict additionally depends on `wrap_events()` git history that was not replayed. ⚠ **Recorded as OPEN rather than answered.** The parent's "intermittent" framing was a better-founded description substituted for the question, which is the same move twice; naming it is the correction.
+
+**5. THE SUSPENSION REMOVES REVIEWED-123's BOUND AND MUST CARRY A REPLACEMENT IN THE SAME ACT.** REVIEWED-123 condition 2 holds that *"a hold with no expiry and no visible distance to expiry is how a temporary freeze becomes a permanent one."* **The bound that condition installed IS grading at 84.** Suspending automatic grading at `trigger_fired()` removes exactly that bound and converts a bounded hold into an open one. **The suspension ruling must therefore install a replacement bound in the same act** — tied to the joint -178/-179 ruling, or to the existence of a working session predicate — **with the 2026-09-16 report obligation surviving either way.** ⚠ Otherwise the act recommended to protect the trial's instrument silently defeats the condition protecting the freeze. ⚠ **This bites OWED-5 specifically:** it is a rule about *controls*, routed per condition 3 into a queue that discharges when a *ladder-retrieval trial* grades. The routing is correct and **the coupling is now long**.
+
+**6. Unbundle the two acts; the suspension goes first.** The parent's resumption order is (1) `git init`, (2) suspend. But the parent's own *decisions deferred* records the `git init` as a **steward call** — 144 MB, full transcripts, a remote question — so it may wait days. **The suspension is the act with a firing distance: N=65 against 84, 19 away, 13 net in the last measured three days.** The two touch different files and neither depends on the other; serializing them **puts the deadline behind the deliberation.** The docstring stays false in the meantime, **which is the correct state for a docstring describing a thing that is not true yet.**
+
+**Awaiting:** Steward authorization, jointly with PENDING-178. ⚠ **Point 5 is a condition on an act already directed, not a new proposal** — if the suspension proceeds without a replacement bound, REVIEWED-123 condition 2 is defeated by the act meant to protect its trial.