diff --git a/PENDING.md b/PENDING.md
index ffae86e..56db168 100644
--- a/PENDING.md
+++ b/PENDING.md
@@ -927,3 +927,22 @@ The four causes are not one kind of thing, and that is the substance of the ask:
 **Files affected:** none touched. Evidence reproducible from `chamber-library` canonical `essai-sur-le-don-mauss.md` (sha `2889709555f2…`) + the phase-2 round files in the vault + `engine/verify_quote.py`, `engine/fidelity.py`.
 **Jurist package:** `studium-engine/docs/quoted-tier-acceptance-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-05.md` (commit `c67586d`) — self-contained, five gate questions Q1–Q5 with executor leans. Verbatim containment proven mechanically before filing: **16/16 quoted clauses contained · 9/9 inversion-built controls absent · INSTRUMENT VERIFIED**. Every cited path re-verified in session.
 **Awaiting:** Steward routing to the jurist. **Filed ≠ sent** — this line is the send-state marker; update it when relayed.
+
+---
+
+## PENDING-100 — Is a footnote's inline reference marker excluded from word-identity comparison? (chamber-side, routed from PENDING-99 Q2)
+**Date:** 2026-08-05
+**Tag:** [PROPOSAL] — chamber constitutional. Routed here by the PENDING-99 jurist ruling (2026-08-05), which answered Q2 as a **reframing rather than a yes/no** and directed the real question chamber-side.
+**Summary:** §II.3's inline-anchor doctrine governs **citation-scheme** anchors (Stephanus, Bekker, book-line) and its **exact syntax is explicitly still open**. Footnotes are handled elsewhere, under §V. Neither clause says whether a footnote's inline **reference marker** — as distinct from its **display number** (§V: *"a carrier artifact"*) and its **text** (§V: Tier-3, *"never altered"*) — is excluded from the prose-word-identity comparison. The constitution is silent on the object that actually bit.
+
+**Why this is not closed by PENDING-99.** REVIEWED-87 ratified `fidelity_equivalence@3` **engine-side only**, on the engine's own typographic-in/orthography-out test plus *functional analogy* to §II.3's stated rationale. The ruling was explicit that this is **not** chamber alignment and must not be recorded as such — §II.3 ratifies no marker syntax, so there is nothing to align with. The engine now excludes `[^n]` from its quoted-tier relation; the chamber has **not** ruled that a footnote marker is a non-word. Those are different claims and the gap between them is real.
+
+**Why it matters beyond the engine.** §V's prose-word-identity guard is a **conversion** gate — it decides whether a re-extraction preserved the prose. If a footnote marker is *not* excluded there, a legitimate re-conversion that recovers or renumbers markers registers as a word-multiset delta and falsely fails; if it *is* excluded, that must be stated, because the guard's whole value is that its exclusions are enumerated. §II.3 already reasons exactly this way for its own marker — *"a legitimate re-extraction (which adds recovered anchors) would register as a word-multiset difference and falsely fail"* — but reasons it about a **different** marker class.
+
+**Options:** (a) rule the footnote reference marker excluded from the word-guard, by the same rationale §II.3 gives for the anchor marker — narrowest, and closes the observed gap; (b) rule it *included* (a real prose token), which makes the conversion guard stricter and requires the re-conversion consequence be priced; (c) fold this into the PROPOSAL that eventually closes §II.3's open marker-syntax item, so **both open edges close together**; (d) leave silent and let each consumer decide, which is the present state and is what produced this item.
+
+**Recommendation:** **(c)**, which is the ruling's own recommendation — *"so both open edges close together rather than the footnote question surfacing again later as its own surprise."* (a) is the likely substance of (c); (d) is the status quo and its cost is now measured; (b) is possible but nobody has priced the re-conversion consequence and it should not be ruled without that.
+
+**Not asked for here:** no spec supersession is drafted, no `graduation-spec.yaml` change, no re-conversion. This item exists so the question is **on file with its evidence** rather than resurfacing later as a surprise — which is the failure mode the ruling named.
+**Files affected:** none touched. Evidence: `studium-engine/docs/quoted-tier-acceptance-JURIST-RULING-2026-08-05.md`; chamber spec §II.3 / §V.
+**Awaiting:** Steward routing — this is chamber-governed (not D-1), so it needs the constitutional loop, not the engine's.