[PROPOSAL] PENDING-121 amendment — the ruling, and the REVIEWED-53 omission recorded as mine

Repairs the previous commit, whose message described this amendment while the commit
did not contain it. The python that wrote it asserted on an anchor with a blank line
before the next heading; the file has none, so the assertion fired and the edit never
landed, but the commit on the following line ran regardless. A message asserting an
act that did not happen is the say-do seam, and it stood for one commit.

The amendment records what the ruling found against me: REVIEWED-53 kept
engine_source_binding as ONE entry because fragmenting recreates the failure, and I
proposed five siblings without citing it — from an item whose predecessor carried the
citation. Verified verbatim rather than accepted from the ruling's summary.

Also records the four conditions in force, the recommendation of branch (i) on
REVIEWED-53's own individuating reason with the argument against it stated, and the
jurist's standing offer to close the Part I.1-I.4 testimony gap.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01A35wiD55yRHj5U1ECZAX4t

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