## REVIEWED-97 — PENDING-113 — Disposition (vi): `voice:` for anonymous, traditional and scripturally-claimed matter

**Date:** 2026-08-08
**Decision:** DISPOSED. Unblocks remediation-order step 1; step 2 (re-tag the Mauss blocks) may proceed per item, under the structure below. Step 3 (`citable: true`) stays gated behind step 2, as ruled.
**Full reasoning:** `studium-engine/docs/voice-non-individual-origin-2026-08-08.md`. The compressed rule below is **not** a substitute for it — whoever writes the next per-source note reasons from that document, not from two tokens.
**Provenance:** jurist design-gate 2026-08-08 (category vocabulary + two-job structure); executor correction of the field placement, from substrate the jurist cannot read (PENDING-86); steward's bibliographic-vs-theological distinction is the ground of the split.

**The disposition — four slots, each doing one job.** The category vocabulary is the jurist's, unchanged; what changed is where it lives.

- **identity — `voice:`.** Who is convoked. `voice:` is the retrieval key (`retrieve.py` filters `d.voice = ?`), so one value IS one speaker: measured, `glidden` already spans 5 sources and `weil` spans 2, correctly, because one person is behind each. Individual-author voices aggregate at the person; traditional and scriptural matter has no such person, so **identity lives at the work level** — `havamal`, `quran-taghabun` — or at the **passage** level where there is no work (the Trobriand formulae). Read as unique per *quoted work*, not per host; `quoted_by` distinguishes hosts. Executor names the values.
- **relation — `quoted_by:`.** Unchanged from REVIEWED-96 Q3: a quoted span grounds the host's REPRODUCTION, never the quoted author's AUTHORSHIP. This, not the voice name, is what limits a thin voice built from an excerpt.
- **category — closed pair, and NOT in the convocation key.** `traditional` (no author claimed, by anyone, within the source's own tradition) · `non-individual-origin` (the tradition itself holds this is not a human composition, by whatever mechanism it names).
- **account — per-source prose note.** The specific claim each tradition makes about its own text's origin does not compress into a token; it goes in prose, one per item.

**Why the category may not sit in `voice:`.** Putting it there would make `traditional` a single convocable speaker spanning Old Norse gnomic verse and Sanskrit epic, with no mechanism to separate them again — the same flattening the ruling exists to prevent, committed in the mechanism instead of the taxonomy.

**Binding caution.** Do NOT assign the remaining items — Havámál, Trobriand formulae, Mahābhārata, Brahmanic passages — to `traditional` by elimination. At least one (the Trobriand formulae, tied in their own cosmology to ancestral or mythic origin) may need `non-individual-origin`, or a note complicating either bucket. Each item gets its own considered note before tagging. **Writing the note is the work; the two-way choice is not a substitute for it.**

**Correction carried into this entry.** The text is **Surah LXIV (`at-Taghābun`), vv. 15–18** — not CXIV (`an-Nās`), which is a different six-verse surah. Mauss's own line reads *"la fameuse Sourate LXIV, « déception mutuelle »"*. The mislabelling originated in the executor's sidecar title and propagated into REVIEWED-96 (Q4), PENDING-113 and session memory; those three name the wrong surah and should be read with this correction. The earlier worked example was built on the "Say" (قُل) formula, which opens an-Nās and does **not** appear in the passage Mauss quotes — that evidence is withdrawn, not transplanted. The general ground (the Qur'án presents itself as divine speech) is untouched. Mauss's *"donnée à La Mecque"* is contestable — at-Taghābun's Meccan/Medinan classification is disputed — and the note **records the dispute rather than resolving it**.

**Not disposed here.** All twelve (vi) blocks are translated matter and `role` is single-valued, so each is *quoted-in* and *translated-from* at once. REVIEWED-96 filed that composition as open against Ungaretti-in-Harrison, as an edge case; it covers the whole of (vi). The disposition is decided; it cannot be **applied** until that composition is ruled.

**Scope.** Disposes (vi) only. REVIEWED-96 Q1–Q6 and PENDING-113's Q2/Q4/Q5 conditions are untouched. The Harrison/Mark finding raised alongside this is filed separately as **PENDING-114**, not as evidence for this entry.

**Numbering note (PENDING-110).** This is `REVIEWED-97`, the next in its own sequence — not `REVIEWED-113`. The registers are independent; PENDING-110 REJECTED renumbering-to-align, and numbering this 113 would skip 97–112 and entrench the false expectation that the sequences match. The heading names its PENDING per that item's convention (b).

---