session 2026-08-14 close (08-17): AMENDMENT 1 placed, A3 executed, truncation flagged

REVIEWED-121 AMENDMENT 1 placed by the steward at ~/REVIEWED.md L1813; A3
executed at studium-engine a3be778 tagged REVIEWED-121-A1. Register-integrity
check now sees 2 amendments where it saw 1 — the conformed heading form worked.

⚠ RECORDED BECAUSE THE TRANSCRIPT IS BEING CLEARED: the placed amendment is
truncated at A3's YAML block. A3's binding rule, A4 and the disposition are
absent from REVIEWED.md, and the draft that held them lived only in the
transcript. The binding rule now survives ONLY as a comment in
corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml, marked there as executor draft awaiting placement
rather than ratified text. A4's substance survives in the session file and in
commit 966168b.

claude/memory/MEMORY.md

@@ -73,7 +73,8 @@ permalink: claude-memory/memory
 > ⚠ **THE FINDING: A CONTROL PASSED TRUTHFULLY AND LICENSED A FALSE CLAIM.** IV.1 said *"F10 is the only §5 row with a stratum-B admission clause"*, marked **verified**. Three rows carry one (F3/F7/F10) — **quoted intact in the package's own I.2 and reproduced in its own IV.2 table.** The script tested whether *quotes were present*; the claim was an *inference over the rows*. **A control whose subject differs from the claim's is not a weak check — it is not a check.** ⚠ And it **understated an objection to my own proposal**, inside the paragraph written to state it at full strength.
 > ⚠ **`test_legacy_indices_are_not_self_verified` DOES NOT EXIST** — one occurrence repo-wide, a docstring. Carried into a corpus file, a commit message and a steward report unopened. 4th cited-a-derived-label instance; fixed `966168b`.
 > ⚠ **PENDING-140 [ESCALATE] FILED 08-17 — a proposed THIRD axis for Constraint 6.** Jurist *without* keys (REVIEWED-116 pt 7) ruled on my testimony and its own A4 was false; *with* keys it returned **three defects in one sitting**. **Formation, role and incentive identical across both — only access changed.** ⇒ bias-difference is **necessary and radically insufficient**; a differently-biased reader with no access checks the *account*, not the *thing*. ⚠ n=1/condition, self-reported, and **authored by the party under discussion** — filed, not acted on. Also: `contamination-problem.md` is a theory of **glazing only**, while a crude probe puts our 235 drift-patterns at **86 literal-genie / 12 trickster / 8 glazing** (129 unclassified; classifier is the very defect PENDING-139 names).
-> 📋 **STEWARD OWES, first act when this line resumes:** place `## REVIEWED-121 — AMENDMENT 1 (2026-08-14)` (draft in the 08-14 transcript). ⚠ **Only that heading form is visible** to the register check — `###` and `· ADDENDUM` are invisible (PENDING-139). Then executor lands A3's three counts, tagged REVIEWED-121-A1. **`ratio_A_to_B` VOID until BOTH REVIEWED-121 and PENDING-137 land.**
+> ✅ **AMENDMENT 1 PLACED 08-17** (`~/REVIEWED.md` L1813) **and A3 EXECUTED** (`a3be778`, REVIEWED-121-A1) — the latch now carries `defeater_dispositions_recorded` + `defeater_population` (**named, not numbered**, on the amendment's instruction). Register check now sees **2 amendments** where it saw 1.
+> 📋 **STEWARD OWES — THE PLACED AMENDMENT IS TRUNCATED**, ending at A3's YAML block. **Missing: A3's binding rule · A4 entirely · the disposition.** ⚠ **The transcript holding the full draft was cleared, so the ONLY surviving copy of the binding rule is the comment in `corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml`** — recorded there as the executor's draft awaiting placement, **not** as ratified text, and it must not be cited as ratified. **`ratio_A_to_B` VOID until PENDING-137 lands too.**
 
 - [Session 2026-08-14 — the controls tested the wrong property](session-2026-08-14-the-controls-tested-the-wrong-property.md) — PENDING-134 closed; REVIEWED-121 placed/executed; PENDING-137/138/139 + a PENDING-89 docket entry filed; three package defects jurist-caught, the addendum's own A4 false, the governance checker carrying two blind spots. **LITERAL Q (sharpens 08-13's): not regression-vs-discovery — was the control's SUBJECT the claim it was cited as verifying, or an adjacent property? Census the last ~10 sessions on that axis.** **+ CODA (post-wrap, 08-17 capture): the four-flavours reading → PENDING-140 [ESCALATE] — Constraint 6 names formation and role/information/incentive; the variable that actually decided whether the jurist caught me was SUBSTRATE ACCESS.**