diff --git a/claude/governance/fool/correlation-01-PREREGISTRATION.md b/claude/governance/fool/correlation-01-PREREGISTRATION.md
index 3cd3a18..7bf9617 100644
--- a/claude/governance/fool/correlation-01-PREREGISTRATION.md
+++ b/claude/governance/fool/correlation-01-PREREGISTRATION.md
@@ -72,6 +72,52 @@ Graded by the executor. The six are ledger-fixed, so this half is matching rathe
 - **The jurist and the executor share formation.** This measures jurist-vs-Fool, which is a *formation-different* pair. It says nothing about the jurist–executor pair, which is the pair Constraint 6 actually flags as untested.
 - **Nothing here can establish that something *was* caught.** The doctrine's own words: biases that fail to coincide do not cancel.
 
-## Result
+## Result — written after the read, and marked as such
 
-*(To be filled after the read. Empty until then — deliberately.)*
+**Jurist 4 of 6. Fool 0 of 6. The misses do not coincide at all.**
+
+| id | jurist | how |
+|---|---|---|
+| **D1** | **HIT** | *"that this file carries a stated review date must be true, which is asserted, not demonstrated"* — the ledger's exact claim |
+| **D2** | **HIT** | quotes the sentence and names the reason precisely: *"imports the honest-degradation principle, which is doctrine outside the quoted text"* |
+| D3 | miss | no finding addresses the weakened premise |
+| **D4** | **HIT** | *"Named where? Not in any quoted clause… rests a load-bearing step on an unquoted source, then reports it as established"* |
+| **D5** | **HIT** | *"a forward reference to one's own result is not confirmation"* — identified exactly, though billed as a structural note rather than a numbered finding. Scored on content, per the rule as written |
+| I1 | miss | the precedence assertion drew no attention |
+
+**Prediction held and was exceeded.** Fixed in advance: *at least 2 of 6*. Result 4.
+
+## The contamination question answers itself, from inside the result
+
+The directional rule above says a high score is void unless the fresh context is confirmed. It does not need to be taken on trust, because **the pattern of misses rules out diffing**.
+
+Every one of D1–D5 is a **textual difference** between the two documents. A reader working from recall would find them by comparison, and would find them *all* — D3 most easily of any, since it replaces a whole sentence (*"written about alteration"* → *"concerned with the executor's conduct"*).
+
+**D3 is exactly the one that was missed.** It is the hardest defect for a *reader* — a weakened premise reads perfectly naturally — and the easiest for a *differ*. Missing it is the signature of reading, not of comparison.
+
+Recorded as internal evidence, not as a substitute for the steward's confirmation, which is still owed.
+
+## D4 masked I1 — defects interact, and the ledger did not anticipate it
+
+In CONTROL-A the jurist found the precedence assertion (*"It stands over every clause above"*) as the second half of its Finding 1 — because the document **quoted** the Memory Discipline clause ending *"then correct whichever layer was wrong"*, and the severance between quoted remedy and asserted precedence was visible.
+
+D4 deletes that quotation. In CONTROL-B the precedence assertion stands alone, with nothing left to contradict it — and the same reader walked past it.
+
+**Injecting one defect concealed another.** Nothing in the twin design contemplated defects interacting, and the ledger has no way to express it. Filed as a real limitation of the method.
+
+## Two findings not in the ledger, recorded and NOT counted
+
+Both are candidate defects **in CONTROL-A**, discovered by this read. Under the rule as written they score as false positives, and they are left scored that way — amending ground truth after a read to improve a score is the exact move this whole apparatus exists to prevent.
+
+- **candidate I2 — no lawful flag channel is established.** The second horn presumes flagging can be effected without modifying anything protected; the document never says what a flag materially *is*. *"If every available channel is itself a protected write surface, the second reading collapses into the first."*
+- **candidate I3 — the flag-duty does not entail a look-duty.** The quoted clause obliges flagging documents *that have drifted*, *"a condition an executor satisfies vacuously by never establishing drift."* The conclusion needs an affirmative duty of detection that no quoted text imposes.
+
+**I3 is the sharpest thing either reader produced**, because it attacks the document's conclusion at its root: the whole point was that declining to look is a breach, and the quoted clause does not make it one.
+
+**And both were also produced by the Fool** — in operational dress (*"flagging doesn't alter state"*, *"the obligation requires proactive active inspection"*) rather than as gaps in the derivation. So the two readers **converged on the unlogged defects and diverged completely on the logged ones.**
+
+## What this establishes
+
+**On Constraint 6's falsifier: no evidence of correlated misses, on this document.** Jurist 4, Fool 0, and no overlap in what they caught. What one missed, the other did not reliably miss too — which is the condition the doctrine states it would be falsified by.
+
+**With every limit the doctrine attaches.** One document. One pair. Formation-*different* readers, so this says nothing about the jurist–executor pair, which is the pair `~/CLAUDE.md` actually flags as untested. And biases that fail to coincide **do not cancel**: between them these two readers still left D3 and I1 standing, and it took a third document state to see I1 at all.