# REVIEWED-134 — application record: automatic grading suspended

**Placed:** 2026-09-04 · **Ruling:** REVIEWED-134 (steward-originated), AUTHORIZED, amending
REVIEWED-123 condition 2 · **Applied by:** executor, same day.

This file is the application of a ruling, not a proposal and not a new item. It exists because
REVIEWED-134's condition 3 replaces a terminus that lived in another ruling, and a replacement
bound with no carrier is the trap REVIEWED-123 condition 5 names in the opposite direction.

## What was suspended

REVIEWED-95's ladder-trial falsifier no longer grades on the transcript counter reaching 84.
The counter is **not modified**: `governance-drift-check.py`'s `transcripts` trigger still counts
`TRANSCRIPTS.glob("*.jsonl")` and still fires at 84, and that site stays excluded from repair and
unexamined per the ruling's Notes. What changed is what a firing **instructs** — recording, not
grading. Nothing in the counting path was touched, and no code was changed to apply this.

**N-now at suspension, measured live 2026-09-04 by the trial's own method:** 65 = 41 real +
24 mumble (36.9%). Distance to threshold, 19. Count and composition both unchanged from the
2026-09-03 reading.

## The replacement terminus, carried verbatim from the ruling

> **This suspension lapses on the joint PENDING-178 / PENDING-179 ruling, or on 2026-10-15,
> whichever falls first.**

And the ruling's condition 4, which governs what the lapse does:

> **Lapse returns the question for a ruling, not for resumption.** On the lapse date automatic
> grading does not resume by default. The falsifier returns for a steward decision that states,
> at minimum, which population it would grade over.

The 30-day review point of 2026-09-16 (REVIEWED-123 condition 2) **stands and is not discharged
by this ruling**. The N-now reporting obligation survives unchanged and is enriched: N-now is
reported at wake **with its real/mumble split**.

## The lapse, given a trigger rather than a memory

<!-- DEFERRED-DECISION: ladder-grading-suspension-lapse
     since: 2026-09-04
     owner: steward
     trigger: date 2026-10-15
     discriminator: REVIEWED-134 condition 3's backstop terminus. Firing does NOT resume automatic grading and does NOT grade — per condition 4 the falsifier returns for a steward ruling that states, at minimum, which population it would grade over (PENDING-147 leg (i) note 3: the two stores are permanently divergent; 21 of the baseline's 64 transcripts were gone before preservation ran, 43 survive, and the 14% baseline is no longer fully auditable). Resolve this block EARLY if the joint PENDING-178 / PENDING-179 ruling lands first — that ruling is the primary terminus and this date is only the backstop, per "whichever falls first". -->

## What this application deliberately did not touch

- **`governance-drift-check.py`** — no edit of any kind. The suspension is carried as data in the
  deferral record, which is what the instrument's vocabulary is for. Line 513 stays unexamined.
- **The `/wake-up` SKILL.md trial line** — it still reads "Graded automatically at 84 transcripts",
  which REVIEWED-134 has now made false. It is the trial's own intervention text and is frozen by
  its own terms and by REVIEWED-123 condition 1; rewording it would confound the measurement the
  suspension exists to protect. **A knowingly stale claim, left stale for a stated reason.**
- **The joint PENDING-178 / PENDING-179 ruling** — condition 6 reserves the unit, the window, the
  recurrence mechanism, the session predicate, and the seeding-and-store question to it.
- **REVIEWED-134 condition 8's recorded disagreement** — three preservation dates where two are
  claimed, two archive paths, a four-file gap. Query before the joint ruling, not before this one.