docs(governance): PENDING-100 — footnote reference marker vs the word-guard, routed chamber-side from PENDING-99 Q2

The jurist answered Q2 as a reframing: §II.3 governs citation-scheme anchors and
its syntax is explicitly open, so there was no yes/no to give. The real gap is
whether a footnote's inline REFERENCE marker — distinct from its display number
(§V, carrier artifact) and its text (§V, Tier-3) — is excluded from word-identity
comparison. Neither clause says.

REVIEWED-87 settled the ENGINE side only, and explicitly not as chamber
alignment. Filed so both open edges can close together rather than this
resurfacing later as its own surprise, which is the ruling's own recommendation.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AB3Kryoy6b1pm2Nz1DYdLh

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.