[FIX] PENDING-151: §5's sequencing checked against the record

Not a judgement about content — a filed rule compared against what happened. §5 reads
'before any result is reported: the steward selects 2 of 9 and judges them without seeing
the jurist's verdicts.' The steward has now received seven worked verdicts, their criterion
clauses, and the tally including 'the null did not appear', before grading anything.

The two regrade pairs are sealed, so the letter about THOSE verdicts holds. The control is
weaker than designed regardless: a regrade made by someone who has read seven examples of
this judge applying this criterion at length is anchored, and §5 exists to keep the second
grader independent.

And the sealing choice compounds it. The jurist noted the two sealed pairs are the two read
under the superseded criterion, so disagreement was already ambiguous. Now agreement is
weakened too. Both directions have lost force.

⚠ Explicitly NOT settled by the executor: whether §5's 'reported' meant stated-to-the-
steward or reported-as-a-finding. That is ambiguous in the pre-registration and belongs to
the judge and the steward.

The cheapest repair is named — grade two DIFFERENT pairs — and so is the possibility that
no uncontaminated route remains, in which case the honest move is to record the control as
degraded rather than run it and call it a control.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J6hZXNYSxEfZseBGTni4sf

PENDING.md

@@ -4560,7 +4560,38 @@ Run against step 1's extraction. **These check structural claims, not judgements
    verdicts were fixed first.
 3. **Then** one withheld cross-pair observation that depends on a sealed pair.
 
-**Awaiting:** the steward's two grades. **Nothing may be reported until they land.**
+#### ⚠ EXECUTOR FLAG — §5's sequencing, checked against what happened
+
+Not a judgement about content; a comparison of a filed rule against the record.
+
+> §5: *"**Before any result is reported:** the steward selects 2 of 9 and judges them
+> under §2 without seeing the jurist's verdicts."*
+
+**The steward has now received seven worked verdicts, the criterion clause each rests on,
+and the tally — including *"the null did not appear"* — before grading anything.** The two
+regrade pairs are sealed, so the letter about *those* verdicts holds. **The substitute
+control is weaker than designed regardless**, because a regrade is now made by someone who
+has read seven examples of this judge applying this criterion, in this voice, at length.
+That is anchoring, and §5 exists precisely to keep the second grader independent.
+
+⚠ **And the sealing choice compounds it, in a way the jurist named but did not connect
+here:** the two sealed pairs are the two read under the superseded criterion, so their
+disagreement was already ambiguous. **Now their agreement is also weakened.** Both
+directions of the control have lost force.
+
+**Not claimed:** that the verdicts are wrong, that the jurist breached anything
+deliberately, or that a clean control is still available. ⚠ **Whether §5 meant "reported"
+as *stated to the steward* or *reported as a finding* is genuinely ambiguous in the
+pre-registration, and the executor may not settle it** — it is the judge's and the
+steward's design.
+
+**The cheapest repair, if either wants one:** the steward grades **two different pairs**
+from the seven — the verdicts are visible, so that is no longer blind either. There may be
+no uncontaminated route left, and if so **the honest move is to record the control as
+degraded rather than to run it and call it a control.**
+
+**Awaiting:** the steward's two grades, and a ruling on the above. **The result is
+provisional until both.**
 
 
 ---