docs(PENDING-183): ADDENDUM 1 — item 1 closed, item 11 established and load-bearing

Item 1 closed by the jurist's correction of its own certifying sentence: the
pile-up statistics (45/45, 0/9) were attached to the partition claim, which is
the co-occurrence of pile-up and lag. Both figures true, the label wrong. The
partition is exceptionless at DAY granularity and not at rejection granularity
(6 of 50, 1 of 52 on the wrong side). The claim is about days.

Item 11: both citations established with their commits. wrap.py:236 -> :256 by
7948c09, today, by me. mumble.py:123 -> :139 by 3d45e3a — which means
REVIEWED-137 cited a line invalidated by the very commit it was ruling on, the
same evening. Not decay; a citation that never held.

The parent's "drift date unestablished" was wrong for the reason the parent
named: the probe was dropping its path argument and printing commit diffs. Two
null results in one sitting, both facts about the query.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T1i5VRfHjD79hfaXjWsBXA

PENDING.md

@@ -4431,3 +4431,36 @@ A partition with no exceptions in either direction. **One opaque integer written
 
 **Files affected:** none — this item names, it does not touch.
 **Awaiting:** Steward and jurist triage of which of the eleven become items in their own right. ⚠ **Items 1, 2 and 6 are the ones where silence costs most**: 1 because two numbers are live, 2 because an untested hypothesis is attractive enough to be reasoned from, 6 because a ruling already declares the mechanism verified.
+
+### ADDENDUM 1 — 2026-09-10 — Item 1 CLOSED by the jurist's correction; item 11 is established, load-bearing, and one citation was stale the day it was written
+
+**Filed before any ruling, so it is read with the parent rather than after it.**
+
+**ITEM 1 IS CLOSED, and the two numbers were never in conflict — only the label was.** The jurist has withdrawn and corrected its own sentence, which is the one that certified the partition: *"`45/45` and `0/9` is not an association. It is a partition with no exceptions in either direction, on fourteen days."*
+
+- **`45 of 45` fourteen-word rejections fall on the five days; `0` of the other `9` days carries one.** These are the **pile-up** statistics. ⚠ **Their denominators are rejections and days respectively — two units inside one ratio, before any label was attached.**
+- **`44 of 50` rejections unattributable on the five days; `1 of 52` on the nine others.** These are the **lag** statistics.
+- **The partition claim is the CO-OCCURRENCE of the two**, and the pile-up's numbers were attached to it.
+
+**The corrected statement, which supersedes both readings:**
+
+> **At day granularity the partition is exceptionless: 14 days, 5 carrying both symptoms, 9 carrying neither. At rejection granularity it is not — 6 of 50 and 1 of 52 sit on the wrong side. The claim is about days.**
+
+⚠ **The part the jurist asked be kept in the record: *"no exceptions in either direction" is true only at day granularity.*** The clean partition was asserted using numbers drawn from a level at which it is not clean. **This is the pulling thread firing inside the sentence that certified the finding** — not in the measurement, and not in a stale record, but in the act of labelling a true number with the wrong population. Nothing downstream of judgment 2 changes; the mechanism remains **UNKNOWN** and item 2's guard stands.
+
+**ITEM 11 — BOTH CITATIONS NOW ESTABLISHED WITH THEIR COMMITS, and the second is worse than "lines move".**
+
+| placed ruling cites | actual location | moved by |
+|---|---|---|
+| `tarbuckle-wrap.py:236` (REVIEWED.md:2993) — the 12-word control | **:256** | **`7948c09`, today, by the executor** |
+| `tarbuckle-mumble.py:123` (REVIEWED.md:3104) — `log_rejection`'s append-mode open | **:139** | **`3d45e3a`, 2026-09-09** |
+
+⚠ **THE SECOND CITATION WAS STALE ON THE DAY IT WAS WRITTEN.** The append-open sat at `:123` from `b95ee73` (2026-08-25) through `97a0cb3`, and moved to `:139` at **`3d45e3a`** — which is the condition-G commit REVIEWED-136 ordered. REVIEWED-137 was placed at `3d340f6`, **after** it. **A ruling cited a line invalidated by the very commit it was ruling on, the same evening.** This is not decay over time; it is a citation that never held.
+
+⚠ **AND THE PARENT'S OWN "drift date unestablished" WAS WRONG FOR THE REASON THE PARENT NAMED.** The `git show` probe that returned nothing returned nothing because of the probe: it was silently dropping its path argument on some invocations and printing commit diffs instead, which is why it once reported a match at "line 13327" of a 500-line file. Re-run with explicit argv and no shell quoting, it resolves in one pass. **Two null results in one sitting, both facts about the query** — the rule fired the first time and was still not enough to stop the second.
+
+**DISPOSITION CHANGE: item 11 moves from observational to LOAD-BEARING.** Two placed rulings are already wrong, one of them from the day it was placed, and nothing re-checks any of them. ⚠ **Recommended remedy, not authorized here: anchor register citations to SYMBOLS OR CONTENT rather than line numbers** — the same reasoning that makes `source_has()` assemble its needle from parts. A line number is a claim with a half-life measured in days.
+
+⚠ **THE CITATIONS ARE NOT TO BE CORRECTED BY EDITING.** A placed ruling is amended by a recorded act. The errata entry is drafted for steward placement; **no in-place revision has been made, and the temptation to make one has now arisen twice this week.**
+
+**Awaiting:** unchanged for the remaining nine items. Item 1 is closed; item 11 awaits a ruling on the anchor remedy.