diff --git a/claude/governance/REVIEWED-128-129-draft-for-placement.md b/claude/governance/REVIEWED-128-129-draft-for-placement.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..899c407
--- /dev/null
+++ b/claude/governance/REVIEWED-128-129-draft-for-placement.md
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+# Drafts for steward placement — REVIEWED-128 and REVIEWED-129
+
+Drafted by the executor 2026-08-25 from the jurist's rulings relayed by the steward.
+Copy the fenced blocks into `~/dotfiles/REVIEWED.md`. ⚠ **128 is complete. 129's
+`Decision:` line is deliberately blank** — PENDING-159 is `[ESCALATE]` and the jurist
+said explicitly that what it gave was *"a view rather than a ruling"*. The executor
+cannot fill that line and has not guessed at it.
+
+---
+
+## REVIEWED-128 — draft
+
+```markdown
+## REVIEWED-128 — The rejection log against §9's "filed nowhere", and the recital defect
+**Date:** 2026-08-25
+**Decision:** AUTHORIZED — the log stands, on three conditions, and is temporary.
+**Ruled by:** jurist (Claude.app), relayed verbatim by the steward. Raised by the
+executor, which flagged the tension rather than resolving it, being the party that had
+written the log.
+
+**The question.** §8 obliges *"report the observed mumble rate after two weeks"*; §9 says
+the fool's output is *"filed nowhere. No `PENDING` entry, no log, no item."* The executor
+had built a rejection log holding up to 200 characters of suppressed lines, at the
+steward's instruction, and could not tell whether that was counting or filing.
+
+**The ruling, and it turns on what was never uttered.** *"The rejection log is a log of my
+instruction, not of Tarbuckle... The rejected lines were never uttered: he was silent, and
+the log holds what silence cost. Nothing there entered the room, nothing can be carried
+forward, and the fool cannot be cited from it because there is nothing to cite — only
+material the net suppressed."* Content-free occurrence counting is separately fine:
+counting is not filing.
+
+**Condition 1 — rejections only, and STRUCTURAL rather than intentional.** *"If it ever
+holds an accepted line, that is filing, straightforwardly, and §9 is breached."* Built as
+asked: `log_rejection()` refuses an empty `why`, and `acceptable()` returns an empty `why`
+exactly when the line passed, so no call site exists from which an accepted line could be
+written. The same guarantee `render()` takes from its signature.
+
+**Condition 2 — temporary; it dies with the report.** *"A permanent store of rejected lines
+is a corpus, and a corpus of his suppressed speech is exactly what would let someone
+reconstruct a register."* That is the hazard PENDING-153's freeze exists to prevent for the
+soul. Tracked as `DEFERRED-DECISION: tarbuckle-rejection-log-deleted`, date 2026-09-08, so
+retention requires an act rather than an omission.
+
+**Condition 3 — not read for content before that date.** *"Reading it as it accumulates is
+reading Tarbuckle by the back door, and it would shape the net toward lines whoever's
+reading happens to like."* ⚠ **Already breached once, before the condition existed:** the
+executor displayed a rejected line to the steward on 2026-08-25. Disclosed in the item, the
+spec and the deferral rather than left to be discovered. The fortnight's read is therefore
+not from a clean corpus, and must say so.
+
+**On the recital defect, ruled in the same exchange.** The steward noticed that invoked
+output was returning the soul's own sample lines; measurement confirmed three of five recent
+lines were near-verbatim lifts. This had reintroduced precisely what PENDING-152 AMENDMENT 6
+rejected — canned strings, which *"make a mood ring, atmosphere within a fortnight"* — through
+the one door nobody was watching, the examples inside the register itself. The jurist:
+*"right instinct, and the right correction to make mechanically rather than by instruction.
+A prompt instruction is a promise; a 4-word run check is a constraint. Using his own lines as
+negative controls is the detail that makes it a real test rather than a filter."*
+
+**On the word caps — DEFERRED to evidence, with the criterion named.** Both caps stand.
+*"One rejection at 196 against 180 is a near-miss, not evidence."* ⚠ The criterion is the
+SHAPE of the rejections, not the count: *"Scattered rejections mean the net is doing its
+job; clustered ones at the ceiling mean the ceiling is wrong."* And the asymmetry:
+the invoked surface is the only place he speaks at length, so a rejection there is a summons
+answered with silence.
+
+**⚠ Standing caution carried from the jurist, on the executor's relays.** *"They show the
+net passes lines that read well when framed. Whether they land is still untested, and stays
+untested until one reaches you unrelayed."* No surface has yet delivered to the steward
+without the executor holding it.
+
+**If AUTHORIZED:** Proceed. The three conditions bind. Tag commits REVIEWED-128. Read the
+rejection log ONCE, on 2026-09-08, for the rate and the shape of the violations; then delete
+it. Do not read it for content before then.
+```
+
+---
+
+## REVIEWED-129 — draft, decision line left for the steward
+
+```markdown
+## REVIEWED-129 — PENDING-159 — The fool cannot reach the jurist, and relaying strips the provenance
+**Date:** 2026-08-25
+**Decision:** [STEWARD — this is `[ESCALATE]`; the jurist gave a view, not a ruling]
+**Jurist's view, on the record:** option 2, narrowly — a provenance marker available to the
+steward, never required, never counted, and nothing built for it.
+
+**Option 3 is CLOSED, and not on the grounds the item gave.** The item flagged §11's
+shared-formation hazard; the jurist says that is the wrong objection. *"I would then be
+reading his output as a jurist reads things: for whether it's apt, whether it bears, whether
+it should be carried. That is adjudication, and once his lines are adjudicated the position
+collapses into a fourth checker."* ⚠ And the clause that reframes the item: *"The steward's
+judgement not to relay is not a bottleneck; it's the mechanism."* The item had treated the
+steward-only path as a limitation to design around.
+
+**The loss is smaller than the item claimed.** §9 forbids citing him **as a source**; it does
+not make his existence unmentionable. *"This came from outside the trio"* is a fact about
+provenance, not an attribution of the claim. Option 2 is therefore already permitted by §9 as
+written — an ambiguity in what *cited as a source* covers, not a constitutional conflict.
+
+**⚠ The item's own reasoning was wrong at its loudest point, and the correction changes the
+remedy.** The item said §9 *"now mandates"* the provenance loss PENDING-153 recorded.
+*"Thistleweld's provenance was lost because nobody thought to record it. §9 doesn't mandate
+that loss — it mandates that the CLAIM be the steward's. The provenance question was simply
+never addressed, in either direction."* An omission being discovered, not a rule doing damage
+— so **§9 needs clarifying, not amending.**
+
+**⚠ A cost of option 2 the item did not name.** *"A line marked from outside arrives in front
+of me differently. I would weigh it differently — probably more heavily... Provenance-without-
+content is still a signal, and a signal I'll respond to."* Option 2 does not preserve
+provenance neutrally.
+
+**⚠ NOTED, NEVER COUNTED — the jurist's narrowing of its own view.** The item's caveat
+(*"a bare count may itself be gradeable"*) is answered: a bare count is gradeable only if
+something can be checked against it, and nothing can, since §9 files nothing. But: *"If the
+marker were ever AGGREGATED — 'four of eleven observations this month came from outside' — the
+aggregate starts to look like a measurement, and a measurement invites the question of whether
+it's accurate. So: the marker may be noted, never counted."* The datum is *this observation had
+an outside origin*, one at a time, never a rate.
+
+**⚠ NOTHING IS TO BE BUILT.** *"If anything gets built for this, the ruling has been reversed
+by construction."* A marker with an implementation is a channel; a channel is option 3 by the
+back door. No script, no field, no counter, no status line. The executor has recorded that its
+own first reflex on reading the view was to reach for a script, and that the reflex will recur.
+
+**Consequential `[FIX]` on §9, corrected in flight.** The jurist first said the clause should
+read that the executor yields *"since it's the only party that can"*, and the executor applied
+that as given. Both were wrong in the same direction: *"the clause reads 'the executor or jurist
+yields the floor' — a disjunction, and the executor half is implementable and correct. So it
+isn't dead text; it's a clause with one live branch and one unreachable one."* Only the jurist
+is struck from the disjunction. ⚠ The executor's failure is separately recorded: a `[FIX]` tag
+licenses implementing directly, not implementing **unread**.
+
+**PENDING-89 amended under this view** to state what it can and cannot expect: individual
+instances, unaggregated, in unknown proportion to those that occurred, and non-neutral —
+therefore **no correlation statistic**. ⚠ An empty period may never be read as a negative
+result. If PENDING-89's falsifier requires a rate, it must find another instrument or say
+plainly that it has none.
+
+**If AUTHORIZED:** Option 2 stands as described — optional, never counted, nothing built.
+Tag nothing; there is nothing to build. Place the §9 `[FIX]`. PENDING-159 closes.
+**If DEFERRED:** the marker is simply not used; nothing is broken and nothing waits on it.
+```