From ec9ffbc067785c3b0e3fa228905a003cdf0d0de3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David F Glidden Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 11:05:43 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?governance:=20REVIEWED-121=20placed=20by=20the?= =?UTF-8?q?=20steward=20=E2=80=94=20the=20whose-proposition=20test?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ⚠ AUTHORSHIP: this entry was written and placed by the STEWARD and jurist. The executor is committing it, not authoring it — ~/REVIEWED.md is outside the executor's write authority (Constitutional Constraint #1) and its content is untouched here. Committed on the steward's explicit instruction because the work already pushed (studium-engine 5425414, dotfiles 51d5cb5) cites this ruling by number, and the derived work was backed up while its authority was not. REVIEWED-121 AUTHORIZED: the whose-proposition test adopted narrowly (the nested-voice case only; the general principle is argument, not doctrine), conditioned on PENDING-131 (c) remaining sought and undiminished. The cell-constant reading is split out as PENDING-137, unruled. Diff verified before staging: 36 insertions, 0 deletions, appended at the tail. No prior entry amended or replaced — the shape that once overwrote REVIEWED-87 with its own amendment and went undetected. --- REVIEWED.md | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+) diff --git a/REVIEWED.md b/REVIEWED.md index 35a8349..7512cfa 100644 --- a/REVIEWED.md +++ b/REVIEWED.md @@ -1773,3 +1773,39 @@ fixture named as such. 5. THIS IS THE THIRD INSTANCE IN FOUR DAYS OF ONE FAMILY — a number stated without the population or unit it counts — and none was caught by an instrument. `546f316` mixed sidecar-file count with manifested-source count in one sentence; `e973db9` §3 withdrew a cross-cell comparison whose units were never shown commensurable; this. All three were caught by re-deriving before quoting. The family is worth watching for whether it warrants a check rather than a habit; no such check is proposed here. **If AUTHORIZED:** Already executed (studium-engine `de1c34b`). The ratio stays VOID. When it is re-derived once under REVIEWED-116 point 5, the derivation must state WHICH population it used and must consume the renamed fields, never a reconstructed `distinct_spans`. The parallel question on the `en` cell — `reachable_items: 22` beside `distinct_divisions: 12`, correctly named but with §6.6's power arithmetic stated in `n` — is NOT established clean by this entry and is owed its own look. Tag follow-on commits REVIEWED-120. + +## REVIEWED-121 — PENDING-134 — The whose-proposition test: adopted narrowly, conditioned on the fence, and its counter-argument corrected upward +**Date:** 2026-08-14 +**Decision:** AUTHORIZED — the narrow test only (Part V as filed, H2 honoured), conditioned per point 5. The general principle is NOT ratified. The cell-constant reading surfaced at point 2 is split out as PENDING-137; its remedy is not decided here. +**Notes:** Ruling on `docs/whose-proposition-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-14.md`. H1 is satisfied: the twelve-key MCP surface was live at ruling time, and §5, §6.2, §7.4, §11.6, §12.5, §14.2, REVIEWED-116, REVIEWED-119 and the fr block of `v2-stratum-tags` were read verbatim from the substrate rather than from the package's transcription. Every quotation in the package's Parts I, IV.4 and VI verified accurate; III.5's figures verified against the file exactly. The defects ruled on below are not transcription defects. + +1. Q1 — ROUTING IS HYBRID, AND THE LINE IS STATED RATHER THAN SPLIT PRAGMATICALLY. §12.5 classes gold composition as D-1; §11.6 is the precedent for a D-1 gold matter appearing here for visibility; REVIEWED-116 nonetheless ruled substantively on this test. The line that reconciles them: **an act that changes what §6.2 means comes to this seat; an act that applies §6.2 to particular spans is D-1.** Adding a span property to the pre-registered enumeration is the first kind. Tagging L1551 is the second. This seat therefore rules scope, disclosure and conditionality; adoption is the steward's under D-1, and is taken in the same sitting. + +2. ⚠ A NARROWING OF §6.2 IS ALREADY IN FORCE, UNAMENDED, AND BY THE LINE AT POINT 1 IT WAS MIS-ROUTED. `corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml` opens with a recorded D-1 decision — 'CELL-CONSTANT MARKERS DO NOT STRATIFY' — under which cross-lingual claim-span and archaic register (F7), both named in §6.2's stratum-B enumeration, do not earn B in the fr/de cells. Removing two markers' effect changes what §6.2 means; it is the first kind of act, not the second, and it belonged here. It is also a post-hoc change to stratum-B membership, derived after seeing the cell, entering by reading rather than by disclosed amendment: the act REVIEWED-116 point 1 ruled impermissible for this item, in the opposite direction. **What is undecided is the remedy, not the routing** — filed as PENDING-137, to be ruled in this sitting for the reason at point 9. Its author surfaced it, named it a §6.2 reading and invited overruling, which is why it is correctable rather than a breach; and nothing here suggests the reading itself is wrong. + +3. H1(a) — THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT IS RECORDED AT CORRECTED STRENGTH, AND IT IS HEAVIER THAN THE ITEM STATES. PENDING-134 and the package record two admission routes to stratum B with F10 holding the second alone. Read against the full §5 table, **three rows carry an explicit stratum-B admission clause** — F3 ('stratum-B hard-grounded gold drawn from aphorisms'), F7 ('stratum-B gold deliberately drawn from the oldest-register passages') and F10 ('included in stratum-B EN/FR gold'). F10 is the only mode whose *sole* route to stratum B is that clause. So the construction was used three times in ten rows, and the design named stratum B in the 'Exercised by' cell for every mode carrying a stratum-B gold role. F4's cell instead routes it to negatives. **Heard, at that strength, and overruled** — for the reason at point 5, not by discounting it. H1(a) is satisfied by this paragraph rather than by remand, and the package is corrected at its own IV.1 before this entry's citation of it is placed. + +4. ⚠ THE CORRECTION EVENT, RECORDED BECAUSE IT OUTLASTS THE NUMBER. The package's IV.1 marks the false claim 'verified verbatim 2026-08-14 against I.1 and I.2' — and I.2 quotes F3 and F7 with their stratum-B clauses intact, while IV.2's own table one page later reproduces both cells as 'stratum-B gold'. A check reported a pass against text containing its own counterexample, and two instruments inside one document disagreed about the same count. This is the third instance of the PENDING-136 denominator class in this arc, and the second is in the same package: Q2 states the stricter rule's cost as 'measured and small: one span' on the **inherited-gold** population, while the rule it prices is a prospective authoring constraint whose cost the package's own III.3 sizes at 73 long quoted spans in Mauss alone and a 532-span corpus floor. Logged as evidence under PENDING-89. + +5. Q2 AND Q4 — ADOPT THE NARROW TEST, CONDITIONED, AND THE HALVES ARE NOT ALIKE. Corrected costing decides Q2 for adoption: a blanket exclusion of F4-marked spans from stratum B forecloses an authoring route across a corpus where reported speech is pervasive, at an unmeasured cost, to save a stratum the inherited gold has already vacated. On Q4, the executor's lean is drawn from the scope H2 forbids — stance failures carry no structural mark, but stance failures are the *general* form, and what is ratified is the nested-voice case, which is §7.4(i)'s own territory. The proposal survives on a different ground: the doctrine and the fence run in opposite directions, so neither can substitute for the other. Split accordingly: + - **the admissible half** does independent work at the gold-composition layer and does *more* work once the fence exists, since line-granularity fencing of a span like L1551 would enclose the host's attributing clause and his conclusion and refuse even a legitimate host-proposition claim. It is a complement to PENDING-131 (c), not a substitute; + - **the refusable half** overlaps §7.4(i) at a lower layer, and with it apparently working the case for building the unbuilt fence quietly weakens. **It does NOT discharge §7.4(i).** Adoption is therefore conditional on PENDING-131 (c) remaining sought and undiminished. + +6. Q3 — H2's NARROWING IS AFFIRMED, AND IT IS WHAT MAKES POINT 5 BITE. The general principle — a marker names a span property while the claim's treatment fixes the disposition — reaches F3, F5, F7, F8 and F10, all pre-registered in §6.2, and nobody has worked out what it does to any of them. Recorded as the ARGUMENT for the nested-voice case, never as ratified doctrine. + +7. Q5 AND Q6 — ONE MECHANISM CARRIES BOTH, AND THE DEFEATER IS REORDERED BECAUSE THE SECOND READER DOES NOT EXIST. 'Two independent readers' was written as though one did; the steward is and has been the sole reader on this corpus, and the executor cannot serve as reader two, having produced the doctrine. Independence of *persons* is therefore replaced by independence of *order*, which is the stronger instrument in any case — two readers who both know the doctrine can both be led by it; a disposition recorded before the doctrine is consulted cannot be. Both the H3 disclosure and the defeater land as declared fields in `corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml`, read by whatever reports recall, so neither travels with anyone's memory: +```yaml + stratum_amended_post_hoc: true + reader_disposition_pre_doctrine: host # host | nested | unclear — recorded BEFORE the test is applied +``` + **The defeater, as ratified:** *the whose-proposition test is defeated by a span on which the reader's disposition, recorded before the doctrine is consulted, is reversed by the doctrine's verdict — and survives re-reading.* + +8. ⚠ THE SINGLE-READER CONDITION IS A STANDING PROPERTY OF THIS CELL, NOT A GAP IN THIS ITEM. Every 'verified by reading' claim on the fr/en cells rests on one reader. This weakens the defeater and it weakens Part III's identification pass, which no key serves and which remains the executor's testimony corroborated by reading rather than by an instrument. Recorded once, at this level, so it is not rediscovered item by item — and so that 'defeater: satisfied' is never read as more than it is. + +9. H3 — THE DISCLOSURE, AND THE BEFORE-STATE IS NOT THE RATIFIED TEXT. §6.2's resulting state is **(i) a pre-registration carrying dated amendments**, per the steward's lean. What it said before is §6.2 *as operated on the fr cell*, which already carries the point-2 narrowing; a disclosure recording only the 2026-07-09 text would be incomplete in the way H3 exists to prevent. The amendment adds `reported-speech span (F4)`, admissible under the test below, dated to this entry, and **made after the spans it reclassifies had been read** — derived 2026-08-10 from L926 and L1551, scoped 2026-08-13 across all nine grounded spans. + +**THE DOCTRINE, RATIFIED (narrow — the nested-voice case only):** + +> **The whose-proposition test.** A claim grounded in a span containing reported speech is **admissible** when it asserts the **host author's** proposition — the reported words serving as evidence inside the host's own argument — and **refusable** when it asserts the **nested voice's** proposition as the host's own. Reported speech is therefore a stratum-B span property for the fr/en Tier-2 gold, not a disqualifying structural mark; the disposition is fixed by the claim, not by the span. The refusable half does not satisfy §7.4(i), whose provenance join remains owed. + +**If AUTHORIZED:** the doctrine paragraph, point 7's defeater and point 9's disclosure are placed. `corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml` gains the two declared fields; no span is re-dispositioned by this entry — L926 (retracted, REVIEWED-118) and L1551 (reclassified, REVIEWED-119) are unchanged, and the immediate corpus effect is nil. The §5 F4 row is NOT amended, and point 3's cheap structural check is thereby lost: an F4 mark becomes compatible with both gold and negative, and a reader must consult the claim to know which. That is the price, stated here rather than left to be discovered. `ratio_A_to_B` stays **VOID** and is re-derived ONCE after **both** this entry and PENDING-137 land and all dispositions are recorded (REVIEWED-116 point 5). The fused-voice sub-type name (`negative_sub_type_OPEN`, REVIEWED-119 point 3) and the gold-schema question (REVIEWED-119 point 4) remain open and are decided by neither entry. `voice_stamp` remains unwired. No live instance exercises this doctrine at ratification; it is untested-in-force, and its first genuine exercise is the first newly-authored fr/en pair with reported speech. Tag follow-on commits REVIEWED-121. \ No newline at end of file