David/dotfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

REVIEWED-128/129 placed by the steward; draft superseded in place, placement verified

Browse Source 
Verified rather than assumed: both blocks are whitespace-normalised identical to what was
placed, 4,230 and 5,378 characters on both sides. The placed text differs only in line
wrapping, which an editor re-flowed. Checked because 'drafted, then placed' is exactly
where a ruling's subject and its artifact drift apart, and this record already carries
that class recurring inside a ruling.

The draft is SUPERSEDED IN PLACE, not deleted: it is now a parallel version of a
canonical record, and an unmarked parallel version is the context-rot failure. It points
at REVIEWED.md and says not to edit it — and says explicitly that 129's Decision line was
blank here and is filled there, so a reader who comes to this file for the decision knows
it does not have it.

Citations wired both ways so the register is navigable from the items rather than only
from the rulings.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J6hZXNYSxEfZseBGTni4sf
This commit is contained in:
David F Glidden
2026-08-25 18:42:10 +02:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent 4b3e08dc7f
commit fc4ec8ffb6
3 changed files with 32 additions and 5 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
claude/governance/REVIEWED-128-129-draft-for-placement.md
+23
View File
@@ -1,3 +1,26 @@
# ⚠ SUPERSEDED — PLACED 2026-08-25. DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE.
**Both rulings are canonical in `~/dotfiles/REVIEWED.md`** — REVIEWED-128 at line 2262,
REVIEWED-129 at line 2318. This file is retained as the drafting record only.
**Superseded in place rather than deleted**, on the same ground as the REVIEWED-127
draft: an unmarked parallel version of a canonical record is the context-rot failure
`CLAUDE.md` names outright. Deleting it would lose the drafting history; leaving it
unmarked would leave two live versions and no way to tell which governs.
**Placement verified rather than assumed**, 2026-08-25: both blocks are
whitespace-normalised identical to what was placed — 4,230 and 5,378 characters on both
sides. The placed text differs only in line wrapping, which the steward's editor
re-flowed. ⚠ **Checked because "drafted, then placed" is exactly where a ruling's subject
and its artifact drift apart**, and this record already carries that class recurring
inside a ruling (PENDING-82/86).
⚠ **REVIEWED-129's `Decision:` line was blank in this draft and is filled in the placed
record.** The steward decided option 1; the executor did not supply it. If this file is
ever read for the decision, it does not have it — read `REVIEWED.md`.
---
# Drafts for steward placement — REVIEWED-128 and REVIEWED-129
Drafted by the executor 2026-08-25 from the jurist's rulings relayed by the steward.