session 2026-08-08 night: REVIEWED-99/100/101 placed; PENDING-117 amended + PENDING-118 filed; harvest #192 collision -> #194, #195 filed

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01A35wiD55yRHj5U1ECZAX4t

REVIEWED.md

@@ -1097,4 +1097,75 @@ nested inside a genuine delimiter pair separates correctly
 
 **Scope.** Disposes PENDING-114 only. REVIEWED-96, REVIEWED-97 and PENDING-115 are untouched; PENDING-115 remains a separate blocker on remediation step 3.
 
-**Pacing.** Execution timing left to the executor as a proportionate-to-energy call, explicitly not decided by the substantive case above.
+**Pacing.** Execution timing left to the executor as a proportionate-to-energy call, explicitly not decided by the substantive case above.
+
+## REVIEWED-99 — PENDING-115 — Two mechanism defects blocking remediation step 3
+**Date:** 2026-08-08
+**Decision:** AUTHORIZED — (a1) and (b1), both before step 3.
+**Notes:** Two of the cleaner items to come through today: each is a real, measured inconsistency between two internal registries that were supposed to agree and don't — ROLE_CLASS vs. SERVED_ROLES for (a), source-scoped vs. voice-scoped warrant query for (b) — not a design judgment call the way (vi) or PENDING-114 were.
+(a1) over (a2): the chunker already treats quotation/translation as served in practice — that is not in dispute, it is measured. The fix makes the ledger's classification agree with what is already true, rather than inventing a fourth state. (a2)'s four-way vocabulary would be more faithful to something, but nothing here needs the extra category; D-4 prefers small closed vocabularies everywhere else this system touches, and that consistency is worth more than growing the vocabulary to solve a problem correct reclassification already solves.
+(b1) over (b2): (b2) is not a live option — it is foreclosed by REVIEWED-97, which requires sub-source voices to exist at all. Named plainly: this defect is not a hypothetical edge case someone got cautious about, it is a defect (vi)'s own disposition directly creates. Good that it surfaced before step 3 rather than after.
+No ordering dependency between (a1) and (b1) — different modules, different failure surfaces; both simply need to land before step 3 does.
+The D-4-promise-not-implemented aside (citable:false really does mean unreachable, not just unindexed, contra the "config not migration" claim) is correctly left embedded rather than split out — it is explicitly non-actionable here, unlike Harrison/Mark, which was a live finding bearing on a different decision. A one-line tracking note is authorized so it does not quietly get treated as settled later; it does not need the full-entry treatment.
+**If AUTHORIZED:** Proceed. Tag commits with REVIEWED-99. Each change carries the positive control named in the entry: for (a1), a quotation section in scope after the change and an apparatus section still out of it; for (b1), a two-voice source whose two voices return different scopes. Step 3 remains blocked until both have landed.
+
+## REVIEWED-100 — PENDING-116 — Run the fleet on the change that breaks it
+**Date:** 2026-08-08
+**Decision:** AUTHORIZED — option (b), repo-declared trigger.
+**Notes:** The cleanest justification of the three, because the cost of not having it already happened and was measured: a full day at 202/203 red, surviving two separate correction passes on the offending commit, caught by accident. That is not a risk being reasoned about in advance, it is a failure already logged.
+(d) — rely on the discipline — is refuted by its own evidence, not merely argued against: the trap was named in CLAUDE.md and still did not fire, because naming a risk is not the same as mechanizing a check on it. That is the same lesson the harvest-routing thread landed on this morning for a completely different subsystem; two independent measurements of the same underlying fact in one day is worth noticing.
+(b) is the right design among the three — (a) correctly rejected for coupling a shared global hook to one repo's layout, (c) correctly rejected for losing more than it gains. It reuses the declared-data-plus-thin-consumer pattern already established for graduation-spec.yaml rather than inventing a new mechanism, which is the right instinct architecturally.
+The scope discipline is right and should not be pushed past: the cross-repo half (a chamber-library edit invalidating engine fixtures with no engine-side commit to hook into) is real and bigger, but needs a genuinely different mechanism — a scheduled source_sha256 check, not a commit hook — and trying to solve both here would likely land neither cleanly. It stays a named follow-on; its own PENDING number waits until the design is derived, which happens while building (b).
+Sequencing note, not a condition: the Mauss re-tag (step 2 of the (vi) remediation) is itself a corpus edit in the same risk class 118f411 was. Landing 116 before or alongside that re-tag covers the very next edit this thread is about to make.
+**If AUTHORIZED:** Proceed. Tag commits with REVIEWED-100. Both halves of the acceptance test are required — a triggering change refused, and a docs-only change that does not run the suites.
+
+## REVIEWED-101 — PENDING-117 — The cross-repo half: a chamber edit invalidates engine bindings with no commit on either side
+**Date:** 2026-08-08
+**Decision:** AUTHORIZED WITH CONDITIONS — (e) + (a) + (c), sequenced (e) → (a) → (c); (b) REJECTED.
+**Notes:** The scope as filed was incomplete and two stated reasons should not enter the record as they stood.
+
+1. The recommendation collides with the principle it protects. graduation-spec.yaml carries
+engine_source_binding as prose. A scheduled checker cannot consume it, so it either hardcodes
+the surfaces — a second home for one enumeration, which the hash-locality principle four lines
+below forbids — or the spec gains a structured surfaces: list. That is an amendment to a
+ratified document, [PROPOSAL] work on the convention-data layer, and Files affected did not
+name it. CONDITION: authorize (a) only together with that amendment, or the fix reproduces
+the drift class one layer out.
+
+2. The rejection of (b) is right; its stated reason is wrong. REVIEWED-100 rejected coupling a
+globally shared hook to one repo's layout. (b) is a repo-local declaration — the authorized
+mechanism — whose command reaches a sibling path. Different object, different failure mode.
+The item's own parenthetical is the stronger objection and is the recorded reason: it fails
+silently when the engine is not cloned beside the chamber, a detector that cannot see where
+the quarry lives, which is this item's own subject class. A borrowed authority in a rejection
+becomes precedent for the next rejection.
+
+3. Resolved before ruling: chamber 177e2b3 touched the reading index only, not the engine
+binding surface, so the item stands as filed and the "not a claim the trigger fired" framing
+needs no correction. 56 days of undetected partial re-anchor is recorded as the detection-
+latency datum the (a)-versus-(d) trade turns on. The executor's check then found that no hash
+covers the reading index at all, so the three named surfaces would have read green throughout
+those 56 days: the surface list is four, not three. That an enumeration was wrong when written
+is itself the argument for condition 1.
+
+4. (e), not on the item's list: check the binding shas unconditionally on every studium-engine
+commit, in the hook REVIEWED-100 landed. Fires where a human is already in the invocation
+path — the gap PENDING-98 names. It does not replace (a): if the chamber moves while the
+engine is quiet, nothing fires. Measured cadence puts (e)'s latency in hours during active
+work, against "whenever someone reads the log". (a) is demoted to backstop for the
+engine-quiet case.
+
+5. The second-order finding is split out as PENDING-118. It concerns an instrument and all
+archived deferrals; filed inside a [PROPOSAL] it dies if the host is deferred or rejected.
+It sits with PENDING-108 and PENDING-110 as one family — the register's own instruments not
+reaching parts of the register.
+
+6. Placement: ~/dotfiles/scripts/. A cross-repo invariant is owned by neither repo; putting it
+in either makes that repo the authority over a relationship it is only one half of. Convention
+data in the ratified spec, thin consumer in dotfiles — the pattern REVIEWED-100 authorized.
+
+**If AUTHORIZED:** Proceed in sequence (e) → spec amendment (condition 1, jurist design-gate)
+→ (a) → (c). Tag commits with REVIEWED-101. The spec amendment gates (a), not (e): (e) reads
+the engine's own manifest and sidecars and needs no cross-repo enumeration. Each stage carries
+a both-directions control — drift reported when a binding is stale, clean reported on a
+genuinely clean corpus.