diff --git a/PENDING.md b/PENDING.md
index 1ef8bb8..91baf84 100644
--- a/PENDING.md
+++ b/PENDING.md
@@ -446,6 +446,52 @@ Executed as §VII eyeball-after-gate: pages rendered with `pdftoppm` and read, n
 **Files affected:** none yet; a measurement, not a change. Output would be a dated record beside the doctrine package.
 **Awaiting:** Steward direction on (a)/(b)/(c), and on whether the executor is the right party to run a measurement of its own oversight at all — the jurist is no more independent here, so this may be steward-only work.
 
+### Docket entry 2026-09-10 — a CROSS-DIRECTION catch, and the COUNT of same-direction jurist closures is itself stated two ways
+
+**The instance.** The jurist directed that a condition on PENDING-139's option (b) be
+filed, and grounded it on a positive control it said was *"now sitting in the record for
+free"* — the indented `## REVIEWED-138` heading. **The executor checked before building on
+it: it was never committed**, existing only between the steward's paste and the steward's
+`sed`, and zero occurrences survive across the last four commits touching `REVIEWED.md`.
+**Cross-direction catch.** The jurist self-reported it immediately and unprompted.
+
+⚠ **THE JURIST'S OWN CHARACTERISATION, WHICH IS THE DATUM AND NOT THE INSTANCE:** *"The
+shape has been consistent all week: I reach for the cheap confirmation and skip the check
+that would cost a turn."* A party naming its own failure mechanism, in class terms,
+unprompted, is a stronger record than any single instance — **and it is the pattern
+Constraint 6's falsifiability clause asks to be watched for.**
+
+**⚠ AND THE COUNT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE RECORD, WHICH IS RECORDED RATHER THAN
+RECONCILED.** The jurist states this is *"the third jurist closure this week,"* enumerating
+the seven-hours corroboration and the six-needle probe. **The banked record enumerates a
+different set**: those two (2026-09-09, day) **plus three more the same evening** —
+accepting `0 of 204` as structural in the same message that re-labelled it; offering the
+W1/W2 surface mix, which assumes a date boundary judgment 2 had killed; and naming
+`321769ae` as the clean attended instance when it falls 0.03 h the wrong side of the
+threshold the jurist itself demanded. **By the record's enumeration today's is the SIXTH,
+not the third.**
+
+**Neither statement carries its enumeration, and both are drawn from the same record.**
+Recorded unresolved; **the executor does not pick**, for the same reason it did not pick
+between the partition's two figures on this item's sibling — the drafting hand choosing
+the count that suits its argument is the move the week is named after. ⚠ **The magnitude
+is not incidental to this item: three self-reported closures and six enumerated ones are
+different evidence about whether a same-direction pattern exists.**
+
+**What this does and does not support, with the standpoint disclosed.**
+
+- All six ran the **same direction** — closing an open question toward no further work.
+- All six were **caught**, four self-caught by the jurist and two by the executor. **No
+  jurist miss in this series survived both parties.**
+- ⚠ **This may NOT be cited as assurance the structure works.** Constraint 6 is explicit
+  that a configuration can satisfy *differently positioned* and still miss an entire class
+  no party is positioned to see. **What is recorded is that these were caught — never that
+  the catching is reliable.**
+- ⚠ **Standpoint:** this entry is written by one of the two parties whose correlation is
+  under study, which is this item's own standing hazard. **The instances are checkable
+  against the register; the inference that the biases do not coincide is not, and is not
+  claimed.**
+
 ### Note added 2026-08-27 — the fool is not a fourth checker, by ruling as well as by construction
 
 **Steward-directed, and it closes a gap this item would otherwise leave open.** The Fool
diff --git a/claude/memory/knowledge-graph.jsonl b/claude/memory/knowledge-graph.jsonl
index 25b2867..87e987f 100644
--- a/claude/memory/knowledge-graph.jsonl
+++ b/claude/memory/knowledge-graph.jsonl
@@ -810,3 +810,5 @@
 {"subject": "mutation testing", "predicate": "prevention", "object": "CAUGHT THE EXECUTOR RE-PLANTING THE SELF-PLANTED NEEDLE INSIDE THE COMMENT EXPLAINING IT, 2026-09-09. The selftest was 17/17 throughout and could not see it; only breaking the thing the control asserts and confirming the control fails revealed that the repair's own prose had planted a contiguous copy of the needle in the file being searched. A discipline about proving instruments stopped a recurrence of the exact bug being repaired, in the repair.", "valid_from": "2026-09-09", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 1.0, "source_file": "session-2026-09-09-night-the-unit-of-the-measurement.md", "extracted_at": "2026-09-09"}
 {"subject": "source_lacks / source_has", "predicate": "covers-only", "object": "the ASSERTION's needle, never the file. Both assemble their needle from parts so a control cannot plant its own literal — but nothing stops a comment, or any other prose in the same file, planting a contiguous copy. Demonstrated 2026-09-09. The repaired mechanism is NOT whole, and REVIEWED-137 §6 declares it verified.", "valid_from": "2026-09-09", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 1.0, "source_file": "session-2026-09-09-night-the-unit-of-the-measurement.md", "extracted_at": "2026-09-09"}
 {"subject": "tarbuckle-last-tick", "predicate": "is", "object": "a MACHINE-GLOBAL draw clock — one path, no session key — so a positional presence is contested by any open pane and won on render frequency rather than attendance. 0 mentions in REVIEWED.md and 0 in PENDING.md before 2026-09-09: the allocator was never in the register's vocabulary, the same shape as tarbuckle-wrap.py the day before.", "valid_from": "2026-09-09", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 1.0, "source_file": "session-2026-09-09-night-the-unit-of-the-measurement.md", "extracted_at": "2026-09-09"}
+{"subject": "claude-app-jurist", "predicate": "drift-pattern", "object": "A SIXTH same-direction closure by the record's enumeration (the jurist self-reports it as the third): asserted that a positive control was 'sitting in the record for free' when the specimen had never been committed — it existed only between a paste and a sed in the working tree. Caught by the executor checking before building on it. ⚠ THE DATUM IS THE JURIST'S OWN CLASS-LEVEL SELF-NAMING, unprompted: 'I reach for the cheap confirmation and skip the check that would cost a turn.' ⚠ The COUNT is stated two ways from one record — 3 self-reported vs 6 enumerated — and is recorded unresolved rather than picked. Docketed at PENDING-89; live for Constraint 6's falsifiability clause.", "valid_from": "2026-09-10", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 1.0, "source_file": "session-2026-09-10-the-scoping-sitting.md", "extracted_at": "2026-09-10"}
+{"subject": "claude-code", "predicate": "prevention", "object": "CHECKING A PREMISE BEFORE BUILDING ON IT CAUGHT A JURIST CLAIM ABOUT WHAT THE RECORD HOLDS, 2026-09-10. The jurist said the positive control for a proposed instrument was already in the record; the executor ran one git query before using it and found the specimen was never committed. A whole condition would have been written around an artifact that does not exist. The banked rule that fired is 'a null search is evidence about the QUERY' inverted — here, a POSITIVE claim about a corpus, tested against the corpus rather than accepted. Third claim in one week about what the record holds, made without asking the record.", "valid_from": "2026-09-10", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 1.0, "source_file": "session-2026-09-10-the-scoping-sitting.md", "extracted_at": "2026-09-10"}