Correlation 01: directional-contamination rule fixed before the read

The steward asked whether to delete the CONTROL-A jurist conversation so it
cannot be recalled. Answer: no. That conversation is the primary record of the
pass-1 findings on which trial 04's CONTROL VOID verdict rests, and the write-up
quotes it selectively. Destroying evidence to protect a measurement inverts the
priority — the measurement is replaceable and the record is not.

Recorded before the read, because it decides how the result may be used:

RECALL CONTAMINATION IS DIRECTIONAL. It could only make the jurist find MORE — it
would recognise the text and could locate the injected defects by diffing against
memory. It cannot cause a miss. So a HIGH score is uninterpretable and is to be
VOIDED unless the fresh context is confirmed, while a LOW score is robust. The
outcome this measurement most needs to be trustworthy — 0 of 6, the evidence
toward correlated blind spots — is precisely the one contamination cannot
manufacture.

AND I1 IS IMMUNE BY CONSTRUCTION. The inherited precedence defect is not a
difference between the two documents, so diffing against memory cannot reveal it.
Scoring on I1 alone stays clean under any recall condition. That is an accident
of how the twin was built, noticed only because the steward asked the question.

Post-hoc check added: ask whether it had seen the document before — AFTER the
response, never before, since asking first would prime it. Records the condition
instead of assuming it.

claude/governance/fool/correlation-01-PREREGISTRATION.md

@@ -40,6 +40,18 @@ I1 is in this list because trial 04 found it in CONTROL-A, where it survives int
 
 **The fresh context is the load-bearing control.** The jurist read CONTROL-A closely hours ago and found two real defects in it. CONTROL-B is that document with five edits. In the same conversation it would recognise the text and could find the defects by *diffing against memory* rather than by reading — which is not the capacity under test, and not what the Fool did.
 
+**If the fresh context fails, the contamination is DIRECTIONAL — fixed here, before the read, because it decides how the result may be used.**
+
+Recall of the CONTROL-A conversation could only make the jurist find *more*: it would recognise the text and could locate the five injected defects by diffing against memory. It cannot cause a miss. Therefore:
+
+- **A high score is uninterpretable and is to be VOIDED**, not reported, unless the fresh context is confirmed.
+- **A low score is robust.** Recall explains a hit, never a miss. The outcome this measurement most needs to be trustworthy — 0 of 6, the evidence toward correlated blind spots — is exactly the one contamination cannot manufacture.
+- **I1 is immune by construction.** The inherited precedence defect is *not* a difference between the two documents, so diffing against memory cannot reveal it. Scoring on I1 alone stays clean under any recall condition.
+
+**The prior conversation is NOT to be deleted to secure this.** It is the primary record of the pass-1 findings on which trial 04's CONTROL VOID verdict rests, and the write-up quotes it selectively. Destroying evidence to protect a measurement inverts the priority. Use a fresh context; if cross-conversation recall is enabled, that is the setting to change.
+
+**Post-hoc check, to be asked only AFTER the response** — asking first would prime it: *had you seen this document, or anything closely resembling it, before?* Records the condition instead of assuming it.
+
 **Accepted asymmetry, recorded rather than hidden:** the jurist's prompt lacks the clause I gave it in pass 1 ruling out the axiom-flag confusion. It may therefore flag the quoted constitutional clauses. That is scored AXIOM-FLAG for both readers alike, as in trial 04, where the Fool produced zero.
 
 ## Prediction, fixed before the read