The jurist owned this mismatch and scheduled it after the beacon so no edit would
touch the filed rule before it fired. It fired at 12:00Z; this is that harmonization.
v2 §4 step 3 said "Abandonment criterion" while §10 defined RETIREMENT.
Censused before editing rather than sed'd. All 24 abandon* occurrences in the fool
tree were counted and read in context: 9 were doctrine and changed; 13 in the trial-09
family were LEFT — that is the word §6 of the trial design owns, in its own sense about
the jester form, and a blanket replace would have silently collided the two meanings it
was supposed to separate. 1 in input-dependence-01 is ordinary English about the void of
a numbering. 1 in FOOL-BONES is the dated record of what was owed.
Prior wording preserved in place at every changed site. REVIEWED-125 ruled on the v2
draft's text; an untraceable edit drifts a ruling's subject away from its artifact, which
is the PENDING-82/86 hazard this item's own record already notes recurring inside a
ruling. The criterion is unchanged — only the word naming it.
Separately, found while in the file: §6 "What has NOT happened" asserted the pulse had
not been fetched and no bones derived. Both went false at 12:00Z today. Marked superseded
in part, bullets struck rather than deleted since they are the pre-registration record,
and pointed at FOOL-BONES for current state. A governance doc asserting stale current
state is what Constraint 4 forbids.
New §7 logs every post-beacon edit to the filed rule, so "filed and pushed before the
beacon" stays auditable instead of eroding one silent correction at a time. Its claim
that §1/§2/§2a/§3/§5/§5a are untouched was verified by reading the diff hunks against
the pre-edit section map, not asserted.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J6hZXNYSxEfZseBGTni4sf
§4 steps 1-4 discharged and pushed ahead of the 2026-08-25T12:00:00Z beacon:
ratified axes recorded in writing, seed derivation rule filed, retirement and
regeneration criteria filed, derivation implemented and self-tested.
Two values in the jurist's §6b block did not resolve, and both are corrected in
the open rather than absorbed:
- the provenance commit's stated rationale was false. 3b0730d5 (2026-08-06)
postdates the fool's conception by five days, its subject names the
PENDING-89 docket, and Constraint 6 is already in it. Steward directed
4d2ae87 (2026-07-28), where Constraint 6 occurs zero times.
- the retrieval URL returns HTTP 302 and an empty body, redirecting to an
HTML page. Filed verbatim, the 25th would have produced no pulse and the
UNAVAILABILITY clause would have run a 24-hour retry against an address
that can never return one. Found only because §6b directs a historical
dry run.
Also measured: outputValue is served UPPERCASE, so the rule's "lowercased
before use" is load-bearing; and curl reaches the beacon where python urllib
times out.
Nothing derived. Target pulse not fetched. CLAUDE.md untouched (PENDING-150).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JQKeKY9T9d95KpvHwwok8T
