[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

scripts/tarbuckle-seam.py

@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ sys.path.insert(0, os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)))
 # copy of `acceptable()` is a second, quietly divergent standard.
 from tarbuckle_mumble_shim import (acceptable, soul_register, session_material,  # noqa: E402
                                    source_lacks, muted, log_event,  # noqa: E402
-                                   echoes_soul, REJECTS)
+                                   echoes_soul, log_rejection, REJECTS)
 
 LAST_TICK = os.path.expanduser("~/.claude/state/tarbuckle-last-tick")
 SEAM_TIMEOUT_S = 15
@@ -84,22 +84,8 @@ Output the line and nothing else. No quotes, no preamble."""
 
 
 def log_silence(why: str, line: str = "") -> None:
-    """⚠ THE REJECTED LINE IS RECORDED, and the first run is why.
-
-    This logged `"line": ""` unconditionally, so the very first seam rejection — a
-    10-word line against a 9-word cap — recorded the verdict and threw away the
-    evidence. The steward had named this log as the instrument for deciding whether
-    the register and the net are mismatched; a log holding only reasons cannot answer
-    that. Found by reading the log after one use, which is the whole argument for
-    reviewing an instrument after every run rather than after failures.
-    """
-    try:
-        import json
-        with open(REJECTS, "a") as fh:
-            fh.write(json.dumps({"t": time.strftime("%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%S%z"),
-                                 "kind": "seam", "why": why, "line": line[:200]}) + "\n")
-    except Exception:
-        pass
+    """Routed through the canonical writer, which cannot record an accepted line."""
+    log_rejection(why, line, "seam")
 
 
 def main() -> int: