[FIX] ruled_pendings' docstring asserted the opposite of the record

Jurist-ruled 2026-08-17 to correct independently of the mechanism, since it is a
false claim whichever remedy wins.

The docstring described REVIEWED-78/-81/-82 as "like-numbered rulings … concerning
other matters" that had "falsely hidden" three items. Both halves are false. They
are the AUTHORIZED rulings on PENDING-78/-81/-82 — same date, titles verbatim
identical, and REVIEWED-81 names "PENDING-81" twice in its own body. They are
like-numbered on purpose: REVIEWED-78's Notes say it was filed separately "for a
mechanical reason: the closure rule in wake-digest.py matches a PENDING item to
REVIEWED-<same number>."

So the number→subject fix broke the three entries deliberately authored to satisfy
the rule it replaced, then recorded their compliance as coincidence. Surfacing them
was a regression; they have read open since 2026-07-28. The change proof could not
see it because it measured a count (18→19) while the claim was each item's
disposition — and the counts stay equal either way: removing 3 false-opens and
restoring 3 false-closeds both leave 29.

Superseded wording retained in the note rather than overwritten.

Also filed as PENDING-142 ADDENDUM 3: the jurist ruling with its condition that
(b)'s closing-verb enumeration must default to NOT CLOSED on unrecognized verbs;
and the verified finding that governance-drift-check.py's subject is exactly one
file (~/CLAUDE.md), so the scripts implementing governance checks make substrate
claims nothing checks — one confirmed occupant, population unmeasured.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013Y6t6qx7cpaCu5xGdD36u4

scripts/wake-digest.py

@@ -367,18 +367,39 @@ def ruled_pendings(reviewed_text):
     closing that item later produced no visible change because it had never been
     counted. Measured at the time: 9 suppressed, 8 correctly, 1 falsely.
 
-    A ruling whose header names no PENDING (REVIEWED-78, -81, -82 …) suppresses
-    nothing.
+    A ruling whose header names no PENDING suppresses nothing — which is the rule's
+    correct behaviour in general and its FALSE-OPEN class in particular. See below.
 
     The correction runs in BOTH directions, and an earlier draft of this docstring
     claimed otherwise — that it could only ever surface more, never fewer. That was
     an overclaim, caught by the change proof rather than by reading. Measured against
-    the live files at the time of the fix: 3 items surfaced that had been falsely
-    hidden (PENDING-78, -81, -82 — like-numbered rulings exist, concerning other
-    matters), and 2 stopped being shown that were genuinely ruled (PENDING-87 by
-    REVIEWED-84, PENDING-88 by REVIEWED-85 — no REVIEWED-87 or -88 exists, so the
-    number-match had never suppressed them). Net 18 → 19 visible. Number-matching
-    was wrong in both directions; only subject-matching is right in either.
+    the live files at the time of the fix: 3 items surfaced (PENDING-78, -81, -82),
+    and 2 stopped being shown that were genuinely ruled (PENDING-87 by REVIEWED-84,
+    PENDING-88 by REVIEWED-85 — no REVIEWED-87 or -88 exists, so the number-match had
+    never suppressed them). Net 18 → 19 visible.
+
+    ⚠ CORRECTED 2026-08-17 (PENDING-142; jurist-ruled to correct independently of the
+    mechanism). This docstring previously described those 3 as *"falsely hidden"* by
+    "like-numbered rulings … concerning other matters." **Both halves are false, and
+    the substrate says so in its own words.** REVIEWED-78/-81/-82 are the AUTHORIZED
+    rulings ON PENDING-78/-81/-82 — same date (2026-07-28), same titles verbatim, and
+    REVIEWED-81 names "PENDING-81" twice in its body. They are like-numbered ON
+    PURPOSE: REVIEWED-78's own Notes state it was filed as a separate entry
+    *"for a mechanical reason: the closure rule in `wake-digest.py` matches a PENDING
+    item to `REVIEWED-<same number>`, so a cross-numbered closure stated only in prose
+    would leave PENDING-78 listed as open at every wake."*
+
+    So the number→subject fix broke the three entries that had been deliberately
+    authored to satisfy the rule it replaced, and then recorded their compliance as
+    coincidence. Surfacing them was a REGRESSION, not a repair; they have read open
+    since 2026-07-28. The change proof could not see it because it measured a COUNT
+    (18 → 19) while the claim was about each item's disposition — and the counts stay
+    equal: removing 3 false-opens and restoring 3 false-closeds both leave 29.
+
+    Number-matching was wrong in both directions. Subject-matching is right in
+    neither until it matches on the SUBJECT — the title or the decision — rather than
+    on the presence of an id token in a header. Remedy is PENDING-142, unbuilt; this
+    note exists so the code does not keep asserting the opposite while it waits.
     """
     return set(re.findall(r"^## REVIEWED-\S+\s*—\s*PENDING-(\S+?)\s*—", reviewed_text, re.M))