> ⚠ **SUPERSEDED BY PLACEMENT, 2026-08-25.** The steward placed this in `~/REVIEWED.md` as
> **REVIEWED-127** during the same session's wrap. **The placed text is the canonical record;
> this file is the executor's draft, kept only as provenance for who drafted it.**
> Verified byte-identical at placement — 3,523 bytes both sides, no drift between the ruling's
> subject and the artifact (the PENDING-82 / PENDING-86 class, checked rather than assumed).
> **Do not edit this file. Read `~/REVIEWED.md`.**

## REVIEWED-127 — PENDING-157 + PENDING-158 — The deferral schema's missing halves, ruled jointly
**Date:** 2026-08-25
**Decision:** AUTHORIZED — both, jointly
**Notes:**
- **The generalization argument carries the ruling.** `DEFERRED-DECISION` exists because deferrals
were being forgotten; its own comment says a deferral is the claim *not yet*, and the trigger fires
when the substrate contradicts it. **A negative state-claim is that sentence about a different
object** — *not yet* about a state rather than a decision. Same words, same forgetting, same
substrate standing ready. One got a machine-checkable trigger weeks ago. The other got nothing, and
nobody noticed they were the same shape. That is a real finding, and it is what is authorized.
- **Ruled together deliberately.** Half a schema invites a third patch, and a third patch is how a
vocabulary accretes instead of being designed. 157 gives deferrals a resolution state; 158 gives
states a falsifier. Neither ships alone.
- **What carries the ruling and what does not.** The 3-of-5-on-existing-vocabulary and
5-of-5-with-two-new-kinds figures were **run**, not asserted, and that is what makes this a
generalization rather than a proposal. The **57 is a grep** and is correctly not called a census;
that line is held as a standing condition in the item because **57 will get quoted**.
- **On the diagnosis change — recorded in the ruling, not left in the item.** The first reading was
*negative-status lists are fragile*, a property calling for care. The evidence against it is
decisive: **the third instance occurred inside the section naming the pattern, hours after it was
written, by an executor explicitly watching for it.** Maximum attention, immediate recency, explicit
vigilance — and it still happened. That is as close to a controlled demonstration as this record
will produce. **Care is not a mechanism.** Stated here because *be careful* is what a later reader
will otherwise reach for.
- **Condition C1 — `STATE-CLAIM` inherits 157's resolution state; it does not ship with a trigger
alone.** The 25th already exposed the gap: a trigger came due, was correctly discharged by renaming
the key, and would otherwise have reported COME DUE forever. If `STATE-CLAIM` ships with the same
shape, discharge is again a manual rename and the decay returns one layer along. If 157 does not
address `resolved:`, that is a third patch already visible from here.
- **Condition C2 — opt-in is accepted, and its limit is stated in the item rather than discovered.**
An opt-in marker catches claims by authors who remember to mark them, which is the same population
that would have caught them anyway. The 57 are unmarked. **Adoption is the open question, not
expressibility.**
- **The motivating evidence was recovered by luck, and the item says so first.** The five-day pair
surfaced because a false belief was stated aloud and found false; the pair had already survived five
days, a jurist ruling, and several sessions in that directory. An accident with no reproduction path
is the clearest statement of what currently exists: nothing. Placed at the head of PENDING-158 at
this ruling's direction.

**If AUTHORIZED:** Proceed. Build both together, 157 first or in the same change, with the controls
the items name: a state-claim whose falsifier has fired IS reported; one whose falsifier has not
fired is NOT; `manual` is listed but never fired; a resolved block with a missing or dangling
pointer is a register-integrity defect. Tag commits REVIEWED-127.