diff --git a/PENDING.md b/PENDING.md
index dac9036..3e149aa 100644
--- a/PENDING.md
+++ b/PENDING.md
@@ -1801,6 +1801,34 @@ So the pathspec was **not silence — it was a cost commitment inside the author
 
 **Awaiting:** Jurist design-gate, then steward authorization.
 
+---
+
+### AMENDMENT 1 — 2026-08-08, on the design-gate ruling (PASSED WITH CONDITIONS)
+
+*Appended, not substituted. Ruling filed verbatim: `~/_Dev/chamber-library/docs/engine-source-binding-surfaces-JURIST-RULING-2026-08-08.md`; disposition layered as an Addendum on the package, which does not rewrite the Parts the jurist read.*
+
+**§A — I MISSED AN ADVERSE RATIFIED RULING ON THE EXACT QUESTION — the one that created the instance I proposed to refine.** Verified verbatim today against `~/REVIEWED.md`, not taken from the jurist's summary — **REVIEWED-53 (2026-07-10):**
+
+> **`engine_source_binding` kept as ONE entry** (names a relationship across three files that move together; fragmenting recreates the failure). **Dual warning kept** (inline ⚠ + block comment — two reading grains).
+
+The package proposed **five sibling entries.** REVIEWED-53 appears in no Part, in no consequence-trace, and in this item's `Related:` line. ⚠ **PENDING-117's `Related:` line carries it** — it was in view one item earlier and I dropped it. *Read the banked record before re-deriving*, failed at the point it exists for. ⚠ **REVIEWED-101 condition 1 did not cite it either**: two rulings from one lane pointing opposite ways, neither aware of the other — **the disagreement is the finding, not a precedence call.**
+
+**§B — Conditions, in force.** **(1)** co-movement becomes **declared data, not `why:` prose**; the block stays ONE entry with `surfaces:` as addressable members; a consumer verifying a proper subset reports `incomplete`, never `clean` — and this **collapses with IV.1 ¶2 into a single requirement**, drafted once. **(2)** resolve scope, then **derive** the enumeration from the runbook's list plus the per-region surface, justifying every omission — never compose afresh. **(3)** no dated counts in declared data: locators and semantics only, population computed at read time; `unverified-by-construction` survives only **as a rule** — *a rule does not go stale and a count does.* **(4)** the promotion rule is **PENDING-47 applied, not new normative text**; reuse the ratified `by`/`against`/`result` shape under the single shared guard, reducing the constitutional change to **one requirement**.
+
+**§C — CONDITION 2, executor's recommendation: branch (i), rescope and rename.** Three grounds, the first decisive:
+
+1. **REVIEWED-53's own individuating reason selects (i).** It kept one entry because the entry *"names a relationship across files that move together."* The runbook's `binding_surface:` block lists **`catalogue.yaml` among the files that move together on a re-anchor.** So the co-movement set is the runbook's five, and the entry's engine-only scope is **narrower than the reason that created it.** (i) makes the entry match its own charter instead of amending it.
+2. **(ii) reinstates the two homes this amendment exists to remove** — the jurist's own consequence: under (ii) Q3's lean fails and the "single home" claim must be dropped rather than asserted falsely.
+3. **The rename is cheap, for a measured reason.** `engine_source_binding` has **0 consumers**, positive-controlled: three known-consumed keys in the same file return **4 / 6 / 1** consuming scripts, and the named key-iteration blind spot was checked directly and is empty. **Nothing breaks.**
+
+⚠ **Against (i), stated rather than buried:** renaming ratified data is itself a change to a jurist-created name, and REVIEWED-53's reasoning must be **carried forward explicitly** — recorded as supersession-by-rename with the co-movement rationale restated, never silently dropped. ⚠ And widening the entry means **condition 1's co-movement invariant must then hold across repos**, a stronger claim than the engine-only version, and it should be stated as such rather than inherited quietly.
+
+**§D — Discharged today, before the ruling is recorded.** **5a** — Mauss split out as **PENDING-125**. **5b** — the 0-consumer claim now carries its positive control and **strengthened rather than downgraded**. **Footer** — corrected; it named 117/119/120 and never this item.
+
+**§E — Open offer, the steward's to take.** The jurist could not open `graduation-spec.yaml`, `conversion-runbook.yaml` or the R0 contract, so **Parts I.1–I.4 are executor testimony in that ruling, not substrate — and conditions 2 and 4 rest on them.** The jurist offers to attempt `governance_read` before the ruling is recorded.
+
+**Awaiting:** steward's branch decision on condition 2 → optional jurist substrate verification → revised Part IV drafted to conditions 1–4 → placement gate.
+
 ---
 ## PENDING-122 — What a green fleet certifies, and what it does not: no suite validates live binding