Two defects in the addendum as first filed, both found by checking rather than
by reading.
First, it asserted a set comparison over documents the jurist cannot read. Its
own header promises every clause reasoned about is quoted verbatim, but the
claim the addendum rests on -- mutual divergence in 3 of 3 comparable pairs --
was a summary of the executor's own analysis. The appendix now reproduces one
pair as an eleven-row side-by-side of extracted claims, verbatim where quoted,
so the comparison can be checked independently. The pair chosen is the least
confounded rather than the most favourable: the v1 standard prompt is
model-agnostic and needs no compressed variant, so both parties demonstrably
read the same file. What the jurist still cannot check is stated explicitly.
Second, Part E rendered a bullet list from the 2025-01-20 source as running
prose with terminal periods the source does not contain, inside a blockquote.
A blockquote asserts verbatim. Same family as the truncation that closed a
sentence with an invented word on 2026-08-01, and again caught mechanically.
Corrected in all three files where it appeared; the fabricated period is now a
positive control, so the instrument proves it catches this defect.
check_containment.py generalises the check that found it. Positive controls are
mandatory -- it exits non-zero if none are declared, because a check reporting
all-pass without them cannot be distinguished from one unable to detect absence.
Addendum-1 now carries its result: 28/28 contained, 5/5 controls absent.
Not filed as satisfying PENDING-86 option (b), which is unruled and concerns
whether such a proof should be REQUIRED of every package. This is the executor
checking its own work before filing.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WuMjg3ipEVa3n8CoSzoyvc
