session 2026-08-20: Fool re-aimed to the seating question; trial 09 void; input-dependence-01 pre-registered

Session record, MEMORY.md rotation (prior Active Session demoted verbatim to
MEMORY-reference.md), Fool workstream tracker added, 7 KG facts appended,
3 skill-harvest proposals filed with declared firing moments.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JQKeKY9T9d95KpvHwwok8T

claude/memory/knowledge-graph.jsonl

@@ -672,3 +672,10 @@
 {"subject": "claude-code", "predicate": "drift-pattern", "object": "REPORTED A CENSUS OF THE THINGS IT HAD LOOKED AT, NOT OF THE THINGS THAT QUALIFY. Told the steward 'PENDING-131 ADDENDA 2 and 4 await steward action'; four of the five blocks carry a live **Awaiting:** — the parent, ADDENDUM 1, ADDENDUM 2 and ADDENDUM 4. The two I quoted were the two I had opened while investigating something else. The jurist then ruled on that testimony, explicitly disclosing it had not verified ADDENDUM 1, and running that one check overturned the count. Seventh instance in one day of a subject adjacent to the claim, and the third of them mine.", "valid_from": "2026-08-17", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 1.0, "source_file": "session-2026-08-17-the-instruments-audited-themselves-and-lost.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-17"}
 {"subject": "a jurist naming the check it did NOT run", "predicate": "prevention", "object": "CORRECTED THE EXECUTOR'S COUNT WHERE NO CONTROL EXISTED. The jurist wrote 'I did not read Addendum 1 or Addendum 2 §1 — the executor named 2 and 4, and I've taken that as testimony rather than verifying', and separately that it had not re-run governance_state(). Both disclosures were actionable by the party that COULD check: ADDENDUM 1 carries a live Awaiting (count wrong by half), and governance_state() shows ZERO rows for 131 rather than a collapsed row. Neither gap had an instrument pointed at it; the disclosure was the instrument. Constraint 6's weak form doing real work because the position was stated rather than assumed.", "valid_from": "2026-08-17", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 1.0, "source_file": "session-2026-08-17-the-instruments-audited-themselves-and-lost.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-17"}
 {"subject": "an answer key's UNIT", "predicate": "drift-pattern-good-direction", "object": "WAS CORRECTED BEFORE THE KEY EXISTED, WHICH IS THE ONLY MOMENT IT COULD BE. REVIEWED-122 cond. 1 requires a hand-read per-ITEM key over 69 filtered items as the acceptance check for PENDING-142. If 'item' resolves to the id — which is how every existing instrument resolves it — the key reproduces the exact unit that caused Class E and grades green by construction. Caught only because the key had not yet been drafted; the fix is to key on ## BLOCKS and record per block whether a live Awaiting exists and at what tag. A pre-registration is only protective if its unit is right, and its unit is the last thing anyone checks.", "valid_from": "2026-08-17", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 1.0, "source_file": "session-2026-08-17-the-instruments-audited-themselves-and-lost.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-17"}
+{"subject": "claude-code", "predicate": "drift-pattern", "object": "check-before-claiming, PROPAGATION form — THIRD instance in three days (2026-08-18 fork from memory; 2026-08-20 Part IV.a). The third is INSIDE the document reporting the second: an inherited claim propagated without opening a file whose hash the same package quoted three sections earlier. Propagation is more dangerous than composition-from-memory because an inherited claim arrives already looking checked.", "valid_from": "2026-08-20", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 0.95, "source_file": "session-2026-08-20-the-fool-was-answering-a-different-question.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-20T21:32:52Z"}
+{"subject": "a jurist flagging a count as UNVERIFIED EXECUTOR TESTIMONY", "predicate": "prevention", "object": "CAUGHT A CENSUS THAT OVER-REPORTED IN THE EXECUTOR'S OWN FAVOUR. The jurist's Q5 named the trial-09 Part II census as what a contaminated reader is least positioned to settle; a substrate check then found FL4 substance 0 and FL3 substance 1 in the corpus against the census's 20 and 16. The flag was banked before the finding existed and is what made checking it the obvious next act.", "valid_from": "2026-08-20", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 0.9, "source_file": "session-2026-08-20-the-fool-was-answering-a-different-question.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-20T21:32:52Z"}
+{"subject": "opening the PRIMARY SUBSTRATE", "predicate": "drift-pattern-good-direction", "object": "OVERRULED BOTH AI PARTIES AT ONCE, in opposite directions, where checking each other had produced two confident wrong readings. OP-02's FL5 argues from Bourdieu's shared field and illusio; CLAUDE.md Constraint 6 asserts difference of FORMATION, an axis FL5 never uses. Neither 'states it more sharply' (executor) nor 'affirms the negation' (jurist) survived the text.", "valid_from": "2026-08-20", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 0.95, "source_file": "session-2026-08-20-the-fool-was-answering-a-different-question.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-20T21:32:52Z"}
+{"subject": "Fool trial 09 (the jester arm)", "predicate": "status", "object": "VOID — recorded void 2026-08-20 by jurist ruling on PENDING-148, never run, generates no grades, never to be cited for 'zero STRONG'. Voided rather than degraded because degrading keeps the name and leaves a citable number behind the addendum that explains it.", "valid_from": "2026-08-20", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 1.0, "source_file": "session-2026-08-20-the-fool-was-answering-a-different-question.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-20T21:32:52Z"}
+{"subject": "the Fool programme", "predicate": "re-aimed-to", "object": "the DEPLOYMENT question (does a different model, local on the M4, add or subtract in the fool seat?) rather than the differently-biased-checkers DOCTRINE question. Consequences: capability confound irrelevant to a named candidate but NON-TRANSFERABLE; no sound control needed because the criterion is differential; PENDING-89 loses its evidence source and is told so.", "valid_from": "2026-08-20", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 0.9, "source_file": "session-2026-08-20-the-fool-was-answering-a-different-question.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-20T21:32:52Z"}
+{"subject": "Fool trials 05-08 and the Fool's D-2 gate", "predicate": "substrate-check", "object": "DO NOT EXIST AS DOCUMENTS ANYWHERE — searched dotfiles, CapableMind-AI, the Obsidian vault and the memory tree 2026-08-20. Every on-disk 'D-2' belongs to another workstream. They are referenced only inside the trial-09 design. Parking them abandons a numbering, not work.", "valid_from": "2026-08-20", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 1.0, "source_file": "session-2026-08-20-the-fool-was-answering-a-different-question.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-20T21:32:52Z"}
+{"subject": "the Fool programme's files", "predicate": "located-at", "object": "~/dotfiles/claude/governance/ and ~/dotfiles/claude/governance/fool/ — NOT CapableMind-AI, which has never held any of it. The confusion is structural: the Fool's SUBJECT (OP-02, the five fault lines) lives in CapableMind-AI/docs/thinking/David/l2-constitution/observer-problem/, its INSTRUMENTS live in dotfiles, and nothing in CapableMind points back.", "valid_from": "2026-08-20", "valid_to": null, "confidence": 1.0, "source_file": "session-2026-08-20-the-fool-was-answering-a-different-question.md", "extracted_at": "2026-08-20T21:32:52Z"}