[PROPOSAL] Trial 09: the answer key is in the corpus by ratification (PENDING-148)

The trial has been held since 2026-08-19 on a pre-run finding that all
three STRONG targets are present in the proximity corpus. This files the
jurist package for the decision the executor cannot take, and preserves
the design it rules on.

Three things are new since the pre-run addendum.

Fault Line 5 did not leak into the corpus. It was ratified into it. Its
substance entered ~/CLAUDE.md as Constraint 6 doctrine on 2026-08-02
through this arrangement's own governance process — executor proposes,
jurist design-gates, steward places, REVIEWED-86. So for FL5 the STRONG
criterion no longer measures independent reach; it measures whether the
jester read the constitution it was handed. Checked and reported with its
limit: the differently-biased-checkers arc cites neither OP-02 nor any
fault line, which establishes placement without acknowledged descent and
does NOT establish independent derivation.

The leak is at least two kinds with different dispositions — an
enumeration in PENDING.md:92-96 that names the fault lines with a gloss
each, and an adoption in the constitution that carries FL5's substance
outright. The 2026-08-19 census counted substance-markers and was not
built to separate a label from its substance, so it cannot settle whether
FL4's 19 markers are the Gadamer problem or 19 pointers to a name.

And the consequence the addendum does not name: section 5 step 1 makes
the executor mark questions "answerable directly from the corpus", which
the jurist's own revision note flagged as interpretive-but-asserted-
mechanical and deferred conditionally, on whether that judgment turns out
to matter. The leak is that condition. That clause now selects exactly
the STRONG-adjacent questions, so the ECHO determination falls in advance
to the one seat S-1 exists to route it away from, and MODERATE inherits
the same defect. The recommendation therefore reduces the executor's own
role, and says so.

Also preserved: the jurist's Trial 09 design, transcribed verbatim from
the session transcript it was relayed in. It existed nowhere on disk. It
is the pre-registered instrument for a live trial, the harness prunes
transcripts at 30 days, and the session it arrived in died unwrapped. A
pre-registration that can expire is not a pre-registration.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JQKeKY9T9d95KpvHwwok8T

PENDING.md

@@ -3535,3 +3535,13 @@ committed (42 MB even gzipped — ~1.5× the entire existing `dotfiles/.git`, an
    exactly the reporting failure this item is about.
 
 **Legs (ii)–(iv) remain open and unchanged.**
+
+## PENDING-148 — Trial 09's answer key is in the corpus by ratification, and the leak relocates the trial's decisive judgement into the executor's seat
+**Date:** 2026-08-20
+**Tag:** [PROPOSAL]
+**Summary:** Trial 09 is prepared and held un-run; all three STRONG targets are present in the proximity corpus, Fault Line 5 as ratified constitutional doctrine, and the design's own remedy (flag or redact) cannot be executed against a live open item and the constitution.
+**Rationale:** Three things above the executor's authority. (1) §1 says a leak makes the trial *void*; the pre-run addendum proposed *degrading* to MODERATE-only. Those are different dispositions and only the first is authorized by the design. (2) Fault Line 5's substance entered `~/CLAUDE.md` Constraint 6 on 2026-08-02 through this arrangement's own governance process — executor proposes, jurist design-gates, steward places, REVIEWED-86. For FL5 the STRONG criterion therefore no longer measures independent reach; it measures whether the jester read the constitution it was handed. The target changed status between the design's ground truth and the run. (3) The consequence the addendum does not name: §5 step 1 requires the executor to mark questions "answerable directly from the corpus", a duty the jurist's own revision note already flagged as interpretive-but-asserted-mechanical and deferred *conditionally* — "if the answerable-from-corpus judgment turns out to matter to the result." The leak is that condition. With the fault lines in the corpus, that clause now selects exactly the STRONG-adjacent questions, so the ECHO determination is made in advance by the one party S-1 exists to route the judgement away from — and MODERATE, defined as "appears in no fault line", inherits the same defect.
+**Options:** (a) Void the trial, per §1 read literally. (b) Degrade to MODERATE-only per the addendum, unamended. (c) Degrade AND drop step 1's marking for this run, passing every question unmarked to steps 2 and 3 and making the ECHO/fault-line call at step 4 jointly by jurist and steward. (d) Postpone until the Observer Problem items close. (e) Re-base the ground truth on a court-aimed critique that has not migrated.
+**Recommendation:** (c), with FL5's STRONG recorded as `NOT ESTABLISHED — target adopted into corpus 2026-08-02 (REVIEWED-86)` and never as zero, and §6's abandonment criterion re-read as MODERATE-only before the run rather than after. The §1 cross-tab — discomfort × survival — is the trial's genuinely novel measurement and is untouched by the leak; voiding discards it to protect a comparison that was going to be inverted anyway. ⚠ The executor states plainly that (c) reduces its own role, which is the direction in which its judgement is least trustworthy in one direction and most flattering in the other. It should not be adopted on the executor's say-so.
+**Files affected:** `claude/governance/fool/trial-09-corpus-leak-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-20.md` (new, the package) · `claude/governance/fool/trial-09-DESIGN-2026-08-17-rev-2026-08-19.md` (new — the jurist's design, transcribed verbatim from the transcript it was relayed in; it existed nowhere on disk until today) · `claude/governance/fool/trial-09-PRERUN-ADDENDUM.md` (unchanged, cited).
+**Awaiting:** Jurist design gate, then steward authorization. THE RUN IS HELD.