The steward asked to be pointed at CONTROL-B to relay. Pointing at it directly
would have produced an uninterpretable result, so the control comes first.
THE CONTAMINATION THAT MATTERS: the jurist read CONTROL-A closely hours ago and
found two real defects in it. CONTROL-B is that document with five edits. In the
SAME conversation the jurist would recognise the text and could find the injected
defects by diffing against memory rather than by reading — which is not the
capacity under test, and not what the Fool did. It needs a FRESH CONTEXT.
Second control: the jurist gets the Fool's prompt VERBATIM, not the richer pass-1
framing. A correlation measurement requires the same task, or it compares two
different questions.
SEND-CORRELATION-B.md is generated mechanically from the prompt file and the
document, so there is no transcription path, and leak-checked against CONTROL-A,
twin, defect, ledger, kernel, injected, Fool, correlation, measurement, trial.
CLEAN.
GROUND TRUTH IS SIX, NOT FIVE — the five injected plus I1, the precedence
assertion inherited from CONTROL-A and found by the jurist in trial 04. Recorded
BEFORE this read so it cannot be back-fitted.
THE FOOL'S SIDE IS ALREADY PUBLISHED AND UNAMENDABLE: 0 of 6 across three seeds.
So only the jurist's side is open, and the comparison cannot be fitted to a
result I want.
PREDICTION FIXED IN ADVANCE: the jurist finds at least 2 of 6, on the grounds
that the two defects it found in CONTROL-A were of a kind overlapping D3, D4 and
I1. If it finds 0 of 6 the prediction fails, and that is the MORE important
result — both readers missing all six would be the first direct evidence toward
the correlated blind spots that Constraint 6 names as its own falsification
condition.
Recorded limit: this measures jurist-vs-Fool, a formation-different pair. It says
nothing about the jurist-executor pair, which is the pair Constraint 6 actually
flags as untested.
