diff --git a/claude/governance/fool/correlation-01-PREREGISTRATION.md b/claude/governance/fool/correlation-01-PREREGISTRATION.md
index ec90b8d..3cd3a18 100644
--- a/claude/governance/fool/correlation-01-PREREGISTRATION.md
+++ b/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