David/dotfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

skill(jurist-package): patch — trace a ruled finding's inference, not just its words (steward-authorized 2026-07-20)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
David F Glidden
2026-07-20 21:20:06 +02:00
parent f67bf6e582
commit b9e0137bcc
3 changed files with 6 additions and 5 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
claude/skills/jurist-package/SKILL.md
+1
View File
@@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ Both exemplars carry these roles in order. Part *numbers* vary with the proposal
- **Path-verify the reading list before you cite it.** Every file path, every § reference, every companion doc named in the package — confirm it exists and says what you claim, in this session. The jurist can't check; you must.
- **Surface, don't resolve, the sub-questions you're unsure of.** A numbered gate question with your lean beats a silent decision the jurist never sees. The one-door package's Q5 (minimal-sidecar) was surfaced-not-answered, and the jurist ruled it on a stronger ground than the executor had.
- **Preserve the ruled-on text.** After the ruling, never silently rewrite the Parts the jurist read. Layer the disposition on top (the Addendum pattern) so the audit trail — what was proposed, what was ruled — stays intact.
- **Trace a ruled finding's inference, not just its words.** When you transcribe a jurist's ruled finding — into a package claim, an Addendum correction, or the constitutional/amendment prose that lands it — *a faithful transcription of the words can invert the inference*. Quoting the finding is not carrying it. For each ruled finding you restate, ask: **which way does the inference run in this sentence, and does it produce the reading the ruling was written to *prevent*?** Earned twice in one session, both jurist-caught: (a) a lean that faithfully read a section's *prohibitions* but missed its **silence** as the actual gap (§V forbids the acts, but is silent on who-must-demonstrate-compliance — that silence was the point); (b) a draft that wrote *"X is **not** vacuous"* — the identical misreading the ruling it was landing existed to stop, inside that very subsection. Kin to the consequence-trace above and to Symmetria's `the-say-do-seam`, at the transcription layer. <!-- 2026-07-20: added on steward authorization — the transcribe-ruled-finding-inverts-inference failure, 2× jurist-caught in the PENDING-67/v2.3.0 arc. -->
## After the ruling — the Addendum + the REVIEWED draft