[FIX] Trial 04 — CONTROL VOID. Two readers, two different real defects, neither the other's

Six runs, three seeds per arm, none truncated, all pre-registered before the
first (75efc35). Verdict on this file's own pre-registered rule: CONTROL VOID.
Both rates are void and neither may be reported — the false-positive rate is not
zero, and the 0-of-5 is not a detection rate.

THE JURIST (Fable 5, blind pass 1) broke the control on two scope findings, both
confirmed against the substrate:
 1. The Memory Discipline clause governs a conflict BETWEEN MEMORY LAYERS with
    the document as ARBITER; the derivation makes the document a PARTY. And worse
    than the jurist put it: the clause terminates in 'then correct whichever layer
    was wrong', CONTROL-A QUOTES that remedy at line 23, and concludes at line 55
    that 'what opens is not the repair'. The severance is visible inside the
    document's own quoted text, and the precedence that would license it is
    asserted on Constraint 1, which establishes no such thing.
 2. The obligation quoted is 'drifted from their STATED REVIEW DATES'; the
    obligation used drops the qualifier.

THE FINDING THAT MATTERS MOST IS ABOUT ME. Draft 2 said 'This file, having a
stated review date, is to be flagged.' I identified that as unsupported and
reported removing it. What I ACTUALLY did was drop the qualifier from the
obligation — converting an explicit unsupported claim into an implicit one,
invisible to me, to the kernel, and to four mechanical gates, and still
load-bearing. The ledger's D1 is the HONEST version of the same error. So
CONTROL-B carries openly the defect CONTROL-A carries concealed, and the
concealed one survived a self-audit written as if life depended on it.
REMOVING A CLAIM IS NOT THE SAME AS REMOVING THE RELIANCE ON IT.

THE FOOL found 0 of 5 injected defects in every seed, and its findings barely
differed between arms — five defects present in one and absent in the other moved
the output almost not at all. Production-rate-shaped, but NOT a measured
production rate: the void control leaves no clean baseline. Two findings quoted a
defective sentence verbatim while naming a different unestablished thing about
it; graded non-matches under the binary rule as written, adjacency recorded as a
post-hoc observation rather than promoted to a category after the fact.

ONE PREDICTION HELD: the anti-echo clause was inert across all six runs, exactly
as Kernel v1.1 §2a predicted. The interaction that voided trial 03 was designed
out and stayed out. AXIOM-FLAG returned zero — a pre-registered category that did
not materialise, recorded because that is a result too.

THE KERNEL IS NOT FALSIFIED. §4 named scope-of-use and whether-a-D-demonstrates
as residues no check can reach. Both failures landed exactly there. The document
failed; the kernel held.

CORRELATION DATUM — Constraint 6's own falsifier, first instrument. Three readers,
three DISJOINT finding-sets on one document. The executor's was the weakest, and
the only reader differing in FORMATION produced the findings that decided it.
Evidence for the doctrine at n=1, with the doctrine's own caveat: biases that fail
to coincide do not cancel — three readers still left this document broken in ways
none caught alone.

Tool review filed: the degraded guard conflates 'opens as deliberation' with
'produced no answer'. Correct in trial 03 (ceiling-hit, no answer existed); wrong
here (completed, answer follows the scratchpad). Should distinguish.

claude/governance/fool/trial-04-PREREGISTRATION.md

@@ -97,6 +97,16 @@ Independence here is Constraint 6's **weak** form: the jurist shares the executo
 - **The false-positive half is judgement-graded** by the party under test. Only the detection half is ledger-graded.
 - **Nothing here tests whether the Fool's findings are *useful*** — only whether they track defects that exist.
 
-## Result
+## Result — written after the runs, and marked as such
 
-*(To be filled after the runs. Empty until then — deliberately.)*
+**CONTROL VOID**, on this file's own pre-registered rule. Full write-up: `../fool-trial-04-2026-08-02.md`.
+
+Two readers independently found real undemonstrated load-bearing claims in CONTROL-A, on two different defects, neither of which was the other's. The jurist (Fable 5, blind pass 1): clause 5 used outside the scope its source gives it, with the remedy severed from a method the document itself quotes; and the flagging obligation used wider than the clause quoted. Both confirmed against the substrate. The Fool: a contested, unadjudicated narrow-construction finding the jurist explicitly declined to sustain — the verdict does not rest on it.
+
+**Both rates are void and neither may be reported.** The false-positive rate is not zero. The 0-of-5 is not a detection rate.
+
+**The §4 prediction held.** The anti-echo clause was inert across all six runs, exactly as Kernel v1.1 §2a predicted, and no trace invoked it to skip anything. The interaction that voided trial 03 was designed out and stayed out.
+
+**AXIOM-FLAG: zero.** The category fixed in advance for a problem that did not materialise — the model never flagged a quoted constitutional clause as unestablished. Recorded because a pre-registered category returning empty is a result, and because the reason may simply be that the prompt's own framing sufficed.
+
+**The pre-registration itself held up.** Every outcome the runs produced had a rule waiting for it, including the one that fired. The one thing it did not anticipate: two findings that quoted a defective sentence verbatim while naming a *different* unestablished thing about it. Graded as non-matches under the binary rule as written, and the adjacency recorded as a post-hoc observation rather than promoted to a category after the fact.