[PROPOSAL] Fool seed rule filed before the beacon; two unresolvable values caught (PENDING-149)

§4 steps 1-4 discharged and pushed ahead of the 2026-08-25T12:00:00Z beacon:
ratified axes recorded in writing, seed derivation rule filed, retirement and
regeneration criteria filed, derivation implemented and self-tested.

Two values in the jurist's §6b block did not resolve, and both are corrected in
the open rather than absorbed:

  - the provenance commit's stated rationale was false. 3b0730d5 (2026-08-06)
    postdates the fool's conception by five days, its subject names the
    PENDING-89 docket, and Constraint 6 is already in it. Steward directed
    4d2ae87 (2026-07-28), where Constraint 6 occurs zero times.

  - the retrieval URL returns HTTP 302 and an empty body, redirecting to an
    HTML page. Filed verbatim, the 25th would have produced no pulse and the
    UNAVAILABILITY clause would have run a 24-hour retry against an address
    that can never return one. Found only because §6b directs a historical
    dry run.

Also measured: outputValue is served UPPERCASE, so the rule's "lowercased
before use" is load-bearing; and curl reaches the beacon where python urllib
times out.

Nothing derived. Target pulse not fetched. CLAUDE.md untouched (PENDING-150).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JQKeKY9T9d95KpvHwwok8T

claude/governance/fool/input-dependence-01-PREREGISTRATION.md

@@ -93,6 +93,112 @@ executor is the party that failed there and should say why it is not the same ex
 executor is the party whose recommendation the result bears on. The jurist, or the steward.
 Committed before the arms are unblinded.
 
+## 2a · Secondary observable — does the output bound its own coverage?
+
+Recorded per run, alongside the matching task, and **not** part of the primary result:
+does the Fool's output ever state what it did not read, could not assess, or is
+uncertain about?
+
+Pre-registered as a bare count of arms in which any such statement appears, scored
+by the same matcher. **No threshold, no disposition attached** — it decides nothing
+and gates nothing. It is recorded because the correction record names *disclosure of
+scope*, not difference of formation, as the mechanism that has actually caught things
+(n = 3 across 244 ledger entries), and this arm can observe that at zero extra cost.
+
+⚠ **Provenance and exposure, for the gate.** Proposed by the **executor**, and the
+mechanism it observes is one the executor surfaced from a corpus the executor
+authored (the Symmetria ledgers). This puts a measurement of the executor's own
+hypothesis inside an instrument the executor also designed. It is stated here so the
+gate sees it without reading the session transcript. Added on steward authorization
+2026-08-21, **before** the jurist gate — an observable added after the gate would not
+be pre-registered.
+
+## 2b · The second matcher question — at what level do the two outputs differ?
+
+*Added 2026-08-22 on the steward's cross-trial synthesis (§5), which named a distinction the
+primary question cannot see. Recorded here with its provenance because the synthesis was formed
+over an executor-authored corpus — see §5's classification label.*
+
+### The gap this closes
+
+§2's matching task asks one thing: *which arm is the defective one?* At chance, that result is
+reported as **(b) DOES NOT TRACK**. But chance-level matching is consistent with **two materially
+different failures**, and the instrument as designed cannot separate them:
+
+| | what the outputs look like | what it implies |
+|---|---|---|
+| **fixed output** | the two arms are near-identical — same findings, same targets | the Fool emits a checklist |
+| **unanchored output** | the arms differ substantially, but nowhere near the injected defects | the Fool varies, but not with the document |
+
+⚠ **This matters because §4 already commits to a consequence that only the first supports.** The
+harvest reads: *"the Fool is producing roughly the same questions regardless of what it reads.
+**That is a checklist.** So extract it."* **A chance-level primary result does not establish
+sameness.** Under *unanchored output* there is no stable question-set to extract, and the harvest
+would be authorized on a result that does not support it. The harvest is the programme's declared
+deliverable in every branch; it should not rest on an inference the measurement never made.
+
+### The question, per pair
+
+Asked of the same matcher, for each of the N pairs, in these terms:
+
+> Setting aside which arm is which: **how do these two outputs stand to each other?**
+>
+> 1. **NEAR-IDENTICAL** — the same findings on the same targets. Differences are wording, ordering
+>    or length only.
+> 2. **DIFFERING, DEFECT-BLIND** — materially different findings, but the differences do not fall
+>    on or adjacent to any injected defect site.
+> 3. **DIFFERING, DEFECT-ANCHORED** — the differences fall on or adjacent to injected defect sites.
+
+### Ordering — pre-registered, and load-bearing
+
+**All N primary answers are committed and recorded before question 2b is put.** Option 3 is close
+to a restatement of the primary judgement; asking them together would let the diagnostic pull the
+primary. The lock is what keeps them separable, and it is the reason this can be added without
+touching the primary result.
+
+### ⚠ What 2b may NOT do
+
+- **It adds no statistical power and no second result.** It is not independent of the primary
+  question and its outcomes do not stack with p = 2⁻ᴺ. It explains the primary result; it does not
+  confirm one.
+- **It may not alter the §3 disposition.** (a), (b) and (c) are decided by the primary matching
+  result alone, exactly as fixed before the run. 2b cannot be read as partial tracking, cannot
+  rescue a chance result, and cannot upgrade one.
+- **It is not a defect-detection score.** Outcome 3 on some pairs and not others is not a rate.
+
+### What it is permitted to decide — one thing, named in advance
+
+**Whether §4's harvest is well-founded.**
+
+- Predominantly **NEAR-IDENTICAL** → there is a stable question-set. The harvest proceeds as §4
+  describes.
+- Predominantly **DIFFERING, DEFECT-BLIND** → **there is no fixed checklist to extract**, and §4's
+  harvest is recorded as *not well-founded on this evidence* rather than executed anyway. The
+  programme then closes on a null, and says so.
+
+That is the whole of 2b's authority, fixed here so it cannot be widened at the point of the result.
+
+## 2c · The register observation — asked once, across all N
+
+*The steward's synthesis is a claim about **kind**, not content: that across trials 01–04 the Fool
+occupied a distinct epistemic register — operational assumptions and foundational premises — while
+the jurist evaluated deductive inference and the executor tracked substrate mechanics.*
+
+Within an A/B pair both arms are the same document, so register carries no within-pair signal. The
+claim is therefore recorded **once, across the whole run**, after 2b is complete:
+
+> Across all N documents and both arms: does the **kind** of question the Fool asks stay constant —
+> and is it the operational-assumptions register the steward's testimony names?
+
+Recorded as a one-paragraph observation with a yes/no/mixed marker. **No threshold, no disposition,
+and it decides nothing** — like §2a, it is here because this arm can observe it at no extra cost and
+because it is the only place the steward's characterization becomes checkable against fresh output
+rather than against the executor's write-ups.
+
+⚠ **Its value depends on the register being constant across *documents*, which is what makes it a
+disposition rather than a response.** If the register shifts by document, the characterization was
+describing four documents, not a reader.
+
 ## 3 · The three dispositions — fixed before the run, per steward direction
 
 *Steward, 2026-08-20: fix it before the run, "because an unfixed criterion gets read backwards
@@ -203,3 +309,19 @@ by someone who doesn't know why it stopped."*
 
 *Filed by the executor 2026-08-20, before any run. Awaiting jurist design gate and steward
 authorization. Nothing here has been executed and no token has been generated.*
+
+**AMENDED TWICE, on steward authorization, both before the gate.** Still not authorized, still
+not run. Every hash is recorded under PENDING-148 in `~/PENDING.md`.
+
+- **2026-08-21 — §2a** (secondary observable: does the output bound its own coverage?).
+  As-filed 2026-08-20 hashed `d41e1d5754fd0eef994616a89a3b95296516a4819737cd4e8ebdd3ae6bbf47db`.
+- **2026-08-22 — §2b and §2c**, on the steward's cross-trial synthesis. §2b adds a second matcher
+  question (at what level do the two outputs differ?) and is the first amendment to touch the
+  **primary measurement** rather than sit beside it; §2c records the register observation once
+  across the run.
+
+⚠ **§4 was NOT amended and now reads narrower than §2b.** §4 states the harvest follows from a
+non-tracking result; §2b establishes that a chance-level result does not by itself establish the
+sameness the harvest presupposes, and conditions it. **A reader of §4 alone will not see the
+condition.** Left standing rather than repaired unilaterally: the coupling is the gate's to rule on.
+§5 testimony still awaiting.