diff --git a/REVIEWED.md b/REVIEWED.md
index 3e40f95..3c24090 100644
--- a/REVIEWED.md
+++ b/REVIEWED.md
@@ -3454,10 +3454,11 @@ line number in a placed ruling is a claim with a half-life measured in days.
 ## REVIEWED-140 — PENDING-187 — Jurist review of the Phase 0 design: sound, one item folded into build rather than gating it
 
 **Date:** 2026-09-17
-**Decision:** — steward to set. Jurist recommends AUTHORIZED, condition folded into slice 2, per PENDING-187's Recommendation.
-**Ruled by:** steward — authorized.
+**Decision:** AUTHORIZED. Proceed to build per PENDING-187's Recommendation — minimal cut first (D7: slices 1–4, scenarios S1–S5 and S9) — with the §2.4 `ts`/`entry_hash` fix folded into slice 2 rather than gating slice 1's start.
+
+**Ruled by:** steward, 2026-09-20, in chat.
 **Drafted by:** jurist (Claude.app), at the steward's instruction, 2026-09-17.
-**Authorized by:** steward, — pending.
+**Authorized by:** steward, 2026-09-20.
 
 Fable's own §8 asked the jurist to attack five points; each is answered, then two independent checks and one further finding.
 
@@ -3465,12 +3466,10 @@ Fable's own §8 asked the jurist to attack five points; each is answered, then t
 - **§3.5's voiding rule is deliberately asymmetric, and correctly so on the axis it covers.** It over-voids on unrelated state transitions (by design — a round-trip to the same hash should not silently reactivate an old signature) and under-covers a narrower case: two candidates can be staged and gated against the same protected set with neither promoted, so a later report can reveal something relevant to an earlier, still-`AUTHORIZED` ruling without voiding it, since `CANDIDATE_STAGED`/`GATE_REPORT` aren't state-changing. Logged as a limit, not a defect to fix now.
 - **The `holds` table (§5): row 2 ('no effect until ruled') is honest, not flattering** — the asymmetry is architecturally enforced (compare-and-swap on an immutable base) against conventionally observed (discipline, not proof), a real difference. **Row 1 is the decorative one** — true near-tautologically for anything built as stage-then-rule. **Row 4 may be understated**, contingent on a fact the jurist cannot check from here: whether `PENDING.md`/`REVIEWED.md` commits are atomic per entry. If not, the document register's append-only-ness is closer to a norm than a chain, and the toy's ledger is the stronger of the two without being marked as such.
 - **Proportion: mostly right-sized; the predicted bias shows in what got specified, not in what the build commits to first.** The object model and eight invariants aren't excess for this steward. Nine scenarios and full signing infrastructure are generous for a toy, but §4.4's own slicing already gates exactly that behind 'extended'.
-- **One further finding, not among the five asked:** §2.4 check 4's ledger bit-identity claim is inconsistent with §3.7's `ts` field as written — detailed in PENDING-187 above.
+- **One further finding, not among the five asked:** §2.4 check 4's ledger bit-identity claim is inconsistent with §3.7's `ts` field as written — detailed in PENDING-187.
 
 **Independent verification**, by a different route than the design's own (search, not the `ar5iv` fetch it used):
 1. The class-incremental collapse the whole toy setup rests on — regularisation methods failing outright on split MNIST, replay-based methods clearing ninety per cent — is corroborated across independent sources. Not re-derived digit-for-digit; a second witness on the finding, not a repeat of the first.
 2. SageMaker's three-value registry status (`Approved`/`Rejected`/`PendingManualApproval`), used in F5's not-novel claim, is confirmed against AWS's own current API reference.
 
-**If AUTHORIZED:** Hand PENDING-187 and this entry to the executor to begin build at slice 1. The §2.4 fix is scoped into slice 2, not a gate on slice 1's start.
-
-**If DEFERRED or REJECTED:** conditions or reasons are the steward's to state; none are drafted here, since the jurist's own recommendation is to proceed.
\ No newline at end of file
+**Proceed:** Hand `PENDING-187` and this entry to the executor to begin build at slice 1. The §2.4 fix is scoped into slice 2, not a gate on slice 1's start. Tag any commit touching this work with `REVIEWED-140`.
\ No newline at end of file