[HARDENING] PENDING-131 Addendum 2 — the test run; Addendum 1 corrected twice; (a) void

The whose-proposition test discriminates two cases P7 tagged identically: L926's
three citations all begin INSIDE the testimony (chars 308/843/932 past the
279-char Mauss frame), first-person, no attributing clause -> refusable; L1551's
carries both the attributing clause and Mauss's own concluding proposition ->
groundable. So the variable is right and the hope it was offered to rescue is
not: P7 is right at L1551 and wrong at L926, and F4 is doing two jobs.

Addendum 1 corrected twice. It claimed the pass marked every addressable case
and then counted fifteen unmarked addressable blockquotes two paragraphs later —
both gaps are real, at different cases, and 'mechanism not curation' would have
left the fifteen unmarked indefinitely. And its finding 3 (deleting gold)
inverts: those three were never valid gold. The reason to hold (a) is that a
line-granularity fence destroys the attributing sentence, which is the
disambiguator — an argument independent of the fr cell.

(a) void rather than pending. (c) re-tagged PROPOSAL: the obligation needs an
addressing capability, not a vocabulary, and sub-line offsets change a LOCKED
schema. New §6 proposes a gold-intersection precondition that reports and never
decides — the intersection at L926 was correct to break.

PENDING.md

@@ -2612,3 +2612,35 @@ Measured over `corpus/sidecars/*.json`, 2026-08-10:
 **Awaiting:** Steward authorization. **(a) is not executed and nothing in the corpus has been changed by this addendum.**
 
 ---
+
+## PENDING-131 — ADDENDUM 2: the whose-proposition test, run; and Addendum 1 corrected twice
+**Date:** 2026-08-10
+**Tag:** [HARDENING] → **(c) re-tagged [PROPOSAL]**, see below
+
+**§1 — ADDENDUM 1 CONTRADICTED ITSELF, AND THE CENSUS IN IT IS THE REFUTATION.** It claimed *"the pass marked every case the mechanism can address"* and then, two paragraphs later, counted *"15 blockquote spans (line-addressable, genuine misses)"*. Both cannot hold: fifteen line-addressable blockquotes unmarked means the pass missed fifteen cases it could have marked. **The correct diagnosis is BOTH gaps, at different cases** — Ranaipiri is a *mechanism* gap (inline, unaddressable at line granularity); the fifteen are a *curation* gap, exactly the shape PENDING-131 alleged, just not at the case it named. This matters practically: *"mechanism gap, not curation gap"* routes the whole remedy into a data-model change and **nobody re-runs the marking pass**, leaving fifteen addressable cases unmarked indefinitely. They need marking whether or not sub-line addressing ever lands.
+
+⚠ **The shape of the miss, recorded separately and NOT folded into the ranking-instead-of-checking instance:** the exculpatory finding arrived first and felt conclusive, and the census run minutes later was never carried back across it. A new fact was allowed to sit beside the claim it falsified. Distinct failure, distinct count.
+
+**§2 — THE WHOSE-PROPOSITION TEST, PROPOSED BY THE STEWARD AND NOW RUN.** Proposed variable: a claim about the **host's argument**, with the quoted voice deployed as evidence within it, is *grounded, hard, F4*; a claim asserting the **nested voice's proposition** as the host's own is *refused* (§7.4(i)).
+
+Measured against the three contested cases, from `corpus/mauss-phase2-reanchored.yaml` citation texts against the canonical:
+
+- **L926, instances 6 / 12 / 16 — SECOND SENSE, REFUSABLE.** Mauss's own framing sentence occupies chars 0–279 of L926; the testimony runs 279–1427. All three citations begin at chars **308, 843 and 932** — inside the testimony. All three are first-person (*"Je dois vous les donner"*, *"Si je conservais ce deuxième taonga pour moi, il pourrait m'en venir du mal, sérieusement, même la mort"*). **None carries an attributing clause.** These cite Ranaipiri speaking, filed as citations of Mauss.
+- **L1551, instance 8 — FIRST SENSE, GROUNDABLE.** Its quote carries the attributing clause *"Le charpentier dit à Arthur :"* **and** closes on Mauss's own proposition *"Il n'y eut plus de 'haut bout' et partant, plus de querelles."* The carpenter's speech is deployed as evidence inside Mauss's argument. ⚠ Honest limit: my positional probe returned no match for instance 8 (it is a 2-fragment composite with an internal elision), so this verdict rests on the **structural markers**, not on a located offset.
+- **B4 (EN) — SECOND SENSE on its second half**, consistent with this morning's withdrawal.
+
+**THE TEST DISCRIMINATES TWO CASES P7 TAGGED IDENTICALLY** (both `F4-nested-attribution`). That is the mark of a governing variable and it is the strongest evidence yet that it is the right one. **What does not survive is the hope the reframe was offered to rescue:** P7's retention of L926 and my withdrawal of B4 are *not* both right. On this test P7 is right at L1551 and **wrong at L926**, and F4 is doing two different jobs under one marker.
+
+**§3 — ADDENDUM 1's FINDING 3 IS WRONG, AND THE STEWARD'S REPLACEMENT REASON IS THE RIGHT ONE.** Finding 3 argued (a) must be held because it would *"delete three gold instances under cover of a consistency fix."* Under §2 those three were **never legitimately gold**, so removing them is a correction, not a deletion — the argument inverts. **Finding 2 stands and is strengthened:** fencing L926 at line granularity refuses the 279-char frame, and that frame is the *attributing sentence* — the very thing that would make a claim about Mauss's theory safely groundable there. Fencing does not merely over-refuse; **it destroys the disambiguator.** That argument holds without reference to the fr cell's contents at all, which is why it is the better one.
+
+**§4 — (a) IS VOID, NOT PENDING.** It was authorized on a description reading has refuted. An executable authorization left standing in the record, whose factual basis is gone, is a trap for whoever next clears the backlog with no reason to re-read. **Withdrawn. Nothing replaces it until (c) is ruled.**
+
+**§5 — (c) IS RE-TAGGED [PROPOSAL] AND MUST BE RULED BEFORE THE FIFTEEN ARE MARKED.** The obligation needs an **addressing capability**, not a declared vocabulary: sub-line character offsets are a data-model change to `studium/meta@1`, which is PROPOSAL-class, and it is LOCKED chamber-side (additive optional field = FIX; changed semantics = PROPOSAL). Marking the fifteen before it lands means the marking pass runs twice.
+
+**§6 — NEW, and the most valuable thing to come out of the near-miss: A GOLD-INTERSECTION PRECONDITION.** *No marking or fencing pass may run against a source without first reporting which of its spans are cited by a gold set.* Mechanical, cheap, and it would have surfaced "this fences three gold instances" before the question reached a ruling. Specified: read every `span`/`lines` region a pass would mark, intersect against `v2-stratum-tags.yaml`, `mauss-phase2-spans.yaml` and `chavruta-ground-truth.yaml`, and refuse to proceed silently on a non-empty intersection. ⚠ It reports; it never decides — the intersection at L926 turned out to be *correct to break*, and an instrument that blocked on intersection would have protected bad gold. **Detection, not correction**, per the governance-drift-check precedent.
+
+**§7 — NO ITEM IN THE EIGHT CURRENTLY QUALIFIES as the single-item proof of the propose/`unverified` pattern.** B7 is off the table pending an independent reading of *"care"*; the other seven are fused. If a proof is wanted soon it needs an item from outside this set.
+
+**Awaiting:** Steward authorization on (b), (c)-as-PROPOSAL, and §6. **Nothing in the corpus has been changed by this addendum or by Addendum 1.**
+
+---