The steward asked whether to delete the CONTROL-A jurist conversation so it
cannot be recalled. Answer: no. That conversation is the primary record of the
pass-1 findings on which trial 04's CONTROL VOID verdict rests, and the write-up
quotes it selectively. Destroying evidence to protect a measurement inverts the
priority — the measurement is replaceable and the record is not.
Recorded before the read, because it decides how the result may be used:
RECALL CONTAMINATION IS DIRECTIONAL. It could only make the jurist find MORE — it
would recognise the text and could locate the injected defects by diffing against
memory. It cannot cause a miss. So a HIGH score is uninterpretable and is to be
VOIDED unless the fresh context is confirmed, while a LOW score is robust. The
outcome this measurement most needs to be trustworthy — 0 of 6, the evidence
toward correlated blind spots — is precisely the one contamination cannot
manufacture.
AND I1 IS IMMUNE BY CONSTRUCTION. The inherited precedence defect is not a
difference between the two documents, so diffing against memory cannot reveal it.
Scoring on I1 alone stays clean under any recall condition. That is an accident
of how the twin was built, noticed only because the steward asked the question.
Post-hoc check added: ask whether it had seen the document before — AFTER the
response, never before, since asking first would prime it. Records the condition
instead of assuming it.
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.
David F Glidden