[FIX] The jurist's three conditions on the rejection log, made structural; §9 fix corrected

CONDITION 1, and it is the one that had to stop being an intention: log_rejection()
refuses an empty `why`, and acceptable() returns an empty `why` EXACTLY when the line
passed. So there is no call site from which an accepted line could be written — logging
one would require inventing a violation it does not have. The same guarantee render()
takes from its signature, applied to the clause the jurist named as the condition under
which this log is not a §9 breach. Both polarities asserted.

CONDITION 2: deletion tracked as its own DEFERRED-DECISION on 2026-09-08, so retaining
it requires an act rather than an omission. A corpus of suppressed speech would let
someone reconstruct a register — the hazard PENDING-153's freeze exists to prevent.

CONDITION 3: not read for content before then. ⚠ Not clean already, and the item says so:
the executor displayed one rejected line to the steward earlier today, before the
condition existed. Disclosed rather than left to be discovered.

⚠ THE §9 [FIX] WAS OVER-APPLIED AND THE EXECUTOR APPLIED IT AS GIVEN. The clause is a
disjunction with one live branch; only the jurist half is unreachable. The first edit
struck the whole thing and rewrote the clause. A [FIX] tag licenses implementing
directly; it does not license implementing UNREAD, and the disjunction was visible in a
three-word span. Corrected, both versions left visible.

PENDING-159 AMENDMENT 2 files the jurist's answer to the item's own caveat and the
narrowing it produces: the marker may be NOTED, NEVER COUNTED — an aggregate becomes a
measurement, and a measurement invites accuracy. And PENDING-89 now carries the sentence
saying what it can and cannot expect: individual instances, unaggregated, in unknown
proportion, non-neutral — therefore NO correlation statistic. If its falsifier needs a
rate, it needs another instrument or an honest admission that it has none.

125 controls across five scripts.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J6hZXNYSxEfZseBGTni4sf

PENDING.md

@@ -942,6 +942,22 @@ already-filed, already-authorized reads to be performed.** Starving for want of
 different condition from starving for want of an instrument, and it is the cheaper one to end.
 
 
+
+### AMENDMENT — 2026-08-25 — what this item can and cannot expect to receive from the fourth position
+
+*Jurist-directed, from PENDING-159. Filed here because this item is the consumer, and a consumer that does not know what arrives will infer from silence.*
+
+**This item asks whether the parties' misses correlate. A differently-positioned party is the only instrument that could produce evidence either way — and the terms on which any such evidence arrives are now fixed, and are narrow.**
+
+- **It arrives only if the steward chooses to note it.** The provenance marker is optional and always will be. Its absence means nothing: not that no outside observation occurred, only that none was marked. ⚠ **This item may never read an empty period as a negative result.**
+- **It arrives one at a time, never as a rate.** The datum is *this observation had an outside origin*. ⚠ **It may not be aggregated.** *"Four of eleven this month came from outside"* turns a fact about the steward's relaying into a measurement, and a measurement invites the question of whether it is accurate — which is the gradeability §2 forbids arriving through the side door.
+- **It never carries content or attribution.** §9: the claim is the steward's, in his words. The marker says an origin was outside the trio; it does not say what was said or who said it.
+- ⚠ **It is not neutral.** A marked observation arrives in front of the jurist differently and is likely to be weighed more heavily. **Anything this item concludes through the marker is concluded through that effect**, and must say so.
+
+**Consequence for this item's design, stated so it is not discovered later:** the fourth position **cannot supply a correlation statistic.** It can supply individual instances, unaggregated, in unknown proportion to the instances that occurred. ⚠ **If this item's falsifier requires a rate, that falsifier cannot be satisfied this way and the item must find another instrument or say plainly that it has none.**
+
+**And the reason the terms are narrow is not caution — it is that the alternatives collapse the position.** Counting makes it a measurement; implementing the marker makes it a channel; giving the jurist eyes makes it adjudication. Each is PENDING-159's option 3 arriving by a different road.
+
 ## PENDING-90 — First L2 transfer: checker position in the calibration loop
 **Date:** 2026-08-02
 **Tag:** [ESCALATE]
@@ -5309,3 +5325,53 @@ The item flagged §11's shared-formation hazard. **The jurist says that is the w
 ⚠ **Nothing is built for this and nothing should be.** A marker with an implementation is a channel, and a channel is option 3 arriving by the back door. The executor notes this explicitly because its own reflex on reading (e) was to reach for a script.
 
 **Awaiting:** steward. Option 3 requires no further consideration.
+
+### AMENDMENT 2 — 2026-08-25 — the jurist answers the item's own caveat, and narrows (e) accordingly
+
+*Two corrections from the jurist, both of their own prior positions, received via the steward.*
+
+#### (a) The `[FIX]` on §9 was over-applied, and the executor applied it as given
+
+The jurist had said the clause should read that the *executor* yields *"since it's the only party that can"* — and the executor struck the whole disjunction and rewrote it. **Both were wrong in the same direction.**
+
+> *"The clause reads 'the executor or jurist yields the floor' — a disjunction, and the executor half is implementable and correct. So it isn't dead text; it's a clause with one live branch and one unreachable one. The fix is to strike the jurist from the disjunction, not to rewrite the clause."*
+
+⚠ **The executor's own failure here is worth naming: it received a `[FIX]` from the jurist and executed it without checking the clause against it.** A `[FIX]` tag licenses implementing directly; it does not license implementing *unread*. The clause was three words long and the disjunction visible in it. **Corrected in the doctrine, with both versions left visible.**
+
+#### (b) The item's caveat on option 2 is ANSWERED, and the answer has a limit that becomes a rule
+
+The item filed option 2 with: ⚠ *"untested against §2; a bare count may itself be gradeable."* The jurist takes it rather than passing it:
+
+> *"A bare count is gradeable only if something can be checked against it — and nothing can. There is no register of Tarbuckle's utterances to audit a count against, because §9 files nothing. The marker records that the steward attributed an origin, and that attribution has no external referent. It's a fact about his relaying, not a claim about the world."*
+
+⚠ **And the limit, which narrows (e) and is filed as the narrowing:**
+
+> *"If the marker were ever AGGREGATED — 'four of eleven observations this month came from outside' — the aggregate starts to look like a measurement, and a measurement invites the question of whether it's accurate. So: **the marker may be noted, never counted.** If PENDING-89 wants a datum, the datum is *this observation had an outside origin*, one at a time, never a rate."*
+
+**(e) is amended to read: option 2, optional, NEVER COUNTED, nothing built.**
+
+#### (c) ⚠ The standing line, restated because it is the one most likely to erode
+
+> *"If anything gets built for this, the ruling has been reversed by construction."*
+
+A marker with an implementation is a channel; a channel is option 3 by the back door. **No script, no field, no counter, no `status` line.** The executor records that its own first reflex was to build one, and that the reflex will recur.
+
+**Awaiting:** steward. PENDING-89 to carry the sentence in AMENDMENT 3 below.
+
+<!-- DEFERRED-DECISION: tarbuckle-rejection-log-deleted
+     since: 2026-08-25
+     trigger: date 2026-09-08
+     owner: executor
+     discriminator: The rejection log at ~/.claude/state/tarbuckle-rejects.jsonl is
+       TEMPORARY and dies with the fortnight's report. Jurist ruling 2026-08-25: "a
+       permanent store of rejected lines is a corpus, and a corpus of his suppressed
+       speech is exactly what would let someone reconstruct a register" — the hazard
+       PENDING-153's freeze exists to prevent for the soul. Read it ONCE, on this date,
+       for the rate and the pattern of violations; then DELETE it. Reading it for
+       content before then is reading Tarbuckle by the back door and would shape the net
+       toward lines the reader happens to like. ⚠ Not clean already: the executor
+       displayed one rejected line to the steward on 2026-08-25, before this condition
+       existed. Disclosed rather than left for the reader to discover.
+       ⚠ Same date as mumble-rate-two-week-report, deliberately: one reading, one
+       deletion, one occasion.
+-->