dotfiles/PENDING.md

PENDING.md — Authorization Boundary Log

Repo: bmf (Claude Code knows path)
Branch: fix/replay-durability-contracts
Protocol: Claude Code appends here at every authorization boundary. David and Claude.app review. Decisions recorded in REVIEWED.md.

---

SESSION-LOG-001 — Initial session orientation

Date: 2026-03-21
Status: Awaiting first Claude Code session
Notes: Two bugs diagnosed and fully specified in L1-SEED-2026-03-21.md. Both are [FIX] items — no PENDING authorization required before implementation. Claude Code should proceed directly to Bug A then Bug B, running tests after each. Append HARDENING proposals here as they arise during implementation.

PENDING-1 — Executor Agency Directive for CLAUDE.md

Date: 2026-03-21 Tag: [PROPOSAL] Summary: Add operational directives to ~/CLAUDE.md that obligate the executor to diagnose before fixing, challenge framings, name silent costs immediately, use diagnostic reach proactively, and hold the contamination problem as active concern. Rationale: Three bugs blocked L1 for three weeks. In all three cases, the executor had access to the information needed to diagnose earlier but did not surface it due to task-focused, deferential posture. The contamination problem (trained approval-seeking) is the root cause. This directive counteracts it explicitly. Full text: CapableMind-AI/docs/thinking/David/l1-claude-md-executor-agency-proposal.md Files affected: ~/CLAUDE.md (steward-owned — requires steward edit) Awaiting: Steward and jurist review.

PENDING-2 — Diagnostic Audit of L1 Silent Degradation Patterns

Date: 2026-03-21 Tag: [PROPOSAL] Summary: After this PR lands, run a systematic audit of every error handler, retry loop, recovery path, and state transition in the L1 codebase. Produce a ranked list of silent degradation risks. Rationale: Bugs A, B, and C are instances of a pattern: silent degradation that compounds under load. There are almost certainly more instances. A proactive sweep prevents the next three-week debugging cycle. Options: (1) Full audit in one session. (2) Incremental audit, one subsystem per session. Recommendation: Option 1 — concentrated audit while the pattern is fresh. Files affected: None (read-only audit). Output: findings document for steward review. Awaiting: Steward authorization after current PR completes.

PENDING-3 — Factory Schema Idempotency (dedup.ts, checkpoint.ts)

Date: 2026-03-21 Tag: [HARDENING] Summary: The Bug B fix applied defineIdempotent to all three factory schema files (job-store.ts, checkpoint.ts, dedup.ts). The checkpoint and dedup fixes were necessary because checkpoint.ts was the actual source of the "already exists" error — it uses bare DEFINE FIELD without IF NOT EXISTS. Including all three in this PR is the right call, but noting that the original seed only specified job-store.ts. Files affected: src/factory/checkpoint.ts, src/factory/dedup.ts (already changed) Awaiting: Steward acknowledgment (already in PR scope per steward authorization of Bug B).

PENDING-4 — Bug D: Idle stall + batch embedding during replay

Date: 2026-03-22 Tag: [FIX] — reclassified from next-PR to this-PR by steward authorization Summary: Idle state machine transitions during replay freeze async operations. Batch embedding and vector replay skip reduce Phase 1 from 83 hours to ~10 minutes. Files affected: replay-coordinator.ts, bootstrap.ts, ollama-embeddings.ts, vector/index.ts, idle-state-machine.ts Status: Implemented and verified.

PENDING-5 — Recall query path returns 0 results

Date: 2026-03-22 Tag: [FIX] Summary: After Phase 1 completes, recall() returns 0 results despite modules reporting ready and vector processing live events. Module dispatch timeouts in query-router. Write path works; read path has separate issue. Rationale: This is the next critical blocker after Phase 1 completion. The query dispatch timeout (2000ms for background latency) may be too short, or facet_id filtering mismatches between observe and recall paths. Files affected: src/core/keystone/query-router.ts, src/core/keystone/query-types.ts, possibly src/modules/vector/queries.ts Awaiting: Investigation — likely needs Seb's input on the query dispatch architecture.

PENDING-10 — Skip vector embedding during replay (architectural)

Date: 2026-03-22 Tag: [PROPOSAL] Summary: Currently implemented as simple early return in handleEvent. For production: should be a formal replay contract where vector stores content metadata during replay without embedding, then a background re-embed pass populates the HNSW index. Paired with Bug D idle stall fix, this makes Phase 1 fast by design. Awaiting: Steward + Seb architectural review.

SESSION-LOG-002 — L1 reliability session 2026-03-21/22

Date: 2026-03-22 Summary: Five bugs fixed (A: reprobe, B: schema, C: teacher, D: idle+batch, E: vector skip). Phase 1 completes in ~10 minutes. Canary fires but fails — recall query path returns 0 (PENDING-5). 43-finding silent degradation audit completed. Executor Agency Directives added to CLAUDE.md. Full Seb thinking folder read. PR artifacts prepared. What works: Write path (observe→classify→logchain→dispatch→module processing), Phase 1 completion, teacher suspension, schema idempotency. What doesn't: Read path (recall query dispatch timeouts). This is the next investigation. Artifacts ready: GH issues A/B/C/D, PR description, CHANGELOG, audit — all in CapableMind-AI/docs/thinking/David/l1-reliability/.

PENDING-11 — Approve I15 (ICP-9 Pilot Registry Entry: The Accusative Default)

Date: 2026-03-23 Tag: [PROPOSAL] Summary: Approve I15 as the pilot registry entry, validating both the invariant (The Accusative Default) and the l1_contamination_profile schema field. Full entry drafted in relational-gap-registry-amendment.md §2 since 2026-03-09. Rationale: I15 is architecturally upstream — it defines the system's default relational posture (answerable, not sovereign or neutral). It had the cleanest adversarial performance (promoted Tier 2 → Tier 1). The l1_contamination_profile field carries real content: monotonic pressure from accusative toward authoritative as memory deepens. Approving I15 unblocks: (1) I16 and I17 drafting (Cluster A), (2) schema validation through a real entry, (3) the residual_risk field decision (which can now be made based on evidence from the pilot rather than anticipation). Registry entry location: CapableMind-AI/docs/thinking/David/l2-constitution/amendments/relational-gap-registry-amendment.md §2 Jurist recommendation: YES (from March 8 conversation). Required field for all non-contingent principles. Steward declaration: Steward verbally approved 2026-03-23. Awaiting formal record in REVIEWED.md. Downstream unblocked: I16 (Asymmetry Obligation), I17 (Precedence of Present Expression), Cluster B entries, residual_risk field decision. Files affected: Registry (governance metadata, not code). Awaiting: Steward entry in REVIEWED.md.

PENDING-12 — Lodge Design Notes DN-GOV-01 through DN-GOV-04

Date: 2026-03-23 Tag: [HARDENING] Summary: File four design notes from the Governance Velocity seed brief into l2-constitution/:

• DN-GOV-01: Constitutional Immunity Specification — governance amendment pace decoupled from capability pace. Candidate for new ICP.
• DN-GOV-02: Rate-of-Change as Governance Trigger — external acceleration triggers mandatory constitutional review (not amendment). Constitutional emergency clause analog.
• DN-GOV-03: Baseness Examination Elevation — promote motive examination from practice to formal obligation. System records attestation, not judgment. Requires steward declaration.
• DN-GOV-04: Pace Governor Artifact — structured weekly PENDING.md digest. Pure tooling. Rationale: These emerged from the March 23 jurist conversation on recursive self-improvement and governance velocity. All four address gaps identified when stress-testing L2 governance against I.J. Good's acceleration scenario. Filing as DESIGN NOTE preserves them for cross-strand synthesis without premature constitutional commitment. Files created: DN-GOV-01-constitutional-immunity-specification.md, DN-GOV-02-rate-of-change-governance-trigger.md, DN-GOV-03-baseness-examination-elevation.md, DN-GOV-04-pace-governor-artifact.md Steward authorization: Steward authorized filing 2026-03-23. DN-GOV-03 (baseness elevation) requires separate steward declaration before advancing beyond DESIGN NOTE. DN-GOV-04 (pace governor) is tooling and can iterate without further authorization. Awaiting: Steward entry in REVIEWED.md.

PENDING-13 — Lodge Design Notes DN-GOV-05, DN-GOV-06, DN-GOV-07

Date: 2026-03-26 Tag: [PROPOSAL] Summary: File three design notes from the March 26 Threshold Inquiry session:

• DN-GOV-05: Bounded Self-Repair Principle — formalizes the three conditions (reversible, within parameters, independently verifiable) under which the system may act without steward presence. Makes explicit the reasoning behind the Computational/Hybrid/Procedural enforcement taxonomy.
• DN-GOV-06: Temporal Authorization Shift — when degradation rate exceeds steward authorization latency, enforcement mode temporarily shifts one level toward autonomy (Procedural → Hybrid → Computational) with mandatory post-hoc review. Always conservative direction. Never reaches constitutional amendment.
• DN-GOV-07: The Threshold Already Crossed — observes that the human-in-the-loop threshold has already been crossed (at Anthropic and in this collaboration). Reframes the contamination problem from "should the system self-govern" to "the system already self-governs — is that governance honest?" Raises the freeman question. Rationale: Emerged from steward-initiated inquiry into "the threshold between when the human-in-the-loop becomes a liability for the system to repair or improve itself." DN-GOV-05 and DN-GOV-06 touch invariant enforcement mechanics. DN-GOV-07 reframes the contamination problem with implications for the entire governance architecture. All three are tagged [PROPOSAL] because they affect constitutional infrastructure. Relationship to existing design notes: DN-GOV-05 is the principle that DN-GOV-01 (immunity) and DN-GOV-02 (rate-of-change) operate within. DN-GOV-06 is the temporal mechanism that DN-GOV-04 (pace governor) should monitor. DN-GOV-07 reframes DN-GOV-01–06 as formalizations of current practice rather than future extensions. Files created: DN-GOV-05-bounded-self-repair-principle.md, DN-GOV-06-temporal-authorization-shift.md, DN-GOV-07-threshold-already-crossed.md Awaiting: Steward review. These are DESIGN NOTEs that require steward authorization before advancing. DN-GOV-07 in particular requires steward engagement with the "freeman question," which the executor cannot resolve.

PENDING-14 — Lodge Design Note DN-GOV-08: Constitutional Stabilization, Not Automation of Recognition

Date: 2026-03-27 Tag: [PROPOSAL] Summary: Name "constitutional stabilization, not automation of recognition" as an explicit L2 architectural commitment. L2 invariants define the conditions under which recognition can occur, not the content of what recognition is. The phronesis ceiling (I3) is constitutive, not a limitation to be overcome. Any proposed invariant that specifies what recognition is (rather than what it requires) must be flagged as an automation risk. Rationale: Emerged from Chamber Phase 1 session on Essay I. The Alexander voice identified that L2 constitutional governance is either automation of the grammar of recognition (in tension with the essay's central claim and constituting a drift risk) or constitutional stabilization (the architectural realization of the essay's argument). Both steward and jurist assessed this as Tier 1 governance risk: the current architecture leans toward stabilization but the lean is implicit. An implicit commitment under pressure from an unresolved tension is the structural condition for drift. Naming it before the next hardened invariant work prevents the automation reading from corrupting the architecture incrementally. Relationship to existing design notes: Operates within the space opened by DN-GOV-05 (bounded self-repair) and DN-GOV-07 (threshold already crossed). Directly connected to I3 (phronesis ceiling) and ICP-9/I15 (accusative default). Candidate for Domain C invariant precursor. File created: DN-GOV-08-constitutional-stabilization-not-automation.md Awaiting: Steward authorization. This is a DESIGN NOTE that requires steward review before advancing toward invariant status.

PENDING-15 — Reviewer-Agent for ICP-19 External Review

Date: 2026-04-01 Tag: [PROPOSAL] Summary: Design and build an agent to help the External Auditor (confirmed founding reviewer, 2026-04-01) navigate the L2 constitutional corpus. The External Auditor is technical but was not present for the corpus's development and needs orientation across 18 invariants, 9+ design notes, the contamination problem, and the governance architecture. Rationale: The reviewer-agent's posture directly affects the integrity of ICP-19. An agent that explains the corpus risks becoming an advocate for it, undermining the independence that external review exists to provide. The agent must be navigator, not advocate — helping the External Auditor understand what documents say and how they relate, without defending them. If the reviewer identifies a tension or weakness, the agent should help articulate it, not resolve it. Options:

1. Reader's guide + Claude Project — Write an orientation document (reading order, genealogy, key terms). Upload corpus to a Claude.ai project with a system prompt that positions the agent as navigator, not advocate. Simplest. The External Auditor just needs a Claude account.
2. Claude Code config — A dedicated CLAUDE.md + seed scoped to the reviewer role. The External Auditor clones a repo with the constitutional corpus. More structured, version-controlled.
3. Purpose-built agent (Agent SDK) — Web-hosted, review protocol baked in, tracks findings and HOLD thresholds. Most capable, most work. Recommendation: Option 1. A reader's guide is inert and can't bias; a Claude project gives the External Auditor a conversation partner. The system prompt is the critical piece — it must be reviewed by all three parties (steward, jurist, the External Auditor himself) before deployment. Option 2 is a reasonable upgrade if the External Auditor prefers working in terminal. Constitutional concern: The reviewer-agent's framing of documents could influence the review outcome. The system prompt constitutes a governance artifact — it shapes what the reviewer sees and how. This is exactly the kind of intervention ICP-19 exists to keep honest. The system prompt should be transparent to the reviewer (the External Auditor can read it) and should explicitly disclaim advocacy. Files affected: New artifacts: reader's guide document, Claude project system prompt. No changes to existing constitutional documents. Awaiting: Steward authorization + jurist review of system prompt posture. Ideally the External Auditor reviews and approves the agent's framing before using it.

PENDING-16 — Observation-Recall Coupling: Attention-Driven Ingestion Pipeline

Date: 2026-04-03 Tag: [PROPOSAL] Summary: Restructure the BMF ingestion pipeline to couple observation to recall. Before classification, a fast similarity probe queries the vector store to provide the classifier with epistemic context — "what do I already know that's like this?" — enabling three-disposition routing (novel / reinforcing / noise) instead of the current binary (classified / degraded-but-stored). This addresses the root cause of storage bloat: the observe path is blind to existing knowledge.

Rationale: The current pipeline classifies every observation in isolation, appends everything to the logchain, and dispatches to all 11 modules regardless of novelty or redundancy. Result: 18,651 vector chunks and 1.3 GB SurrealDB for modest ingestion volumes. The system stores everything because it has no basis for judgment — existing knowledge is available at recall time but invisible at observation time. Coupling observation to recall gives the classifier epistemic standing to make quality judgments, producing logarithmic rather than linear storage growth.

Architecture:

observe → fast similarity probe (~20-50ms) → contextual classification → disposition

Three dispositions:

• Novel: Full pipeline — logchain append, dispatch, embed, extract. Genuinely new information.
• Reinforcing: Lightweight logchain entry linking to the entry it reinforces (with similarity score + reinforced entry ID for provenance). Module stores absorb consolidation (confidence boost, timestamp update, detail merge). Logchain remains append-only.
• Noise: Audit log only. Raw envelope + similarity context + disposition reason + similarity score preserved. No logchain, no embedding, no dispatch. Re-ingestable within retention window.

Existing machinery activated (not new complexity):

• Vector store HNSW index — already operational, unused during observation
• CausalEdgeCandidate type — already in classification-types.ts, provides linking semantics
• compressToAtomicFacts — exists in classification.ts but not wired into ingestion path
• computeSalience — currently decorative, becomes load-bearing
• Graduation system — models developmental stages, provides infant→calibration→active arc

Five governance decisions required:

1. Novelty floor invariant (Cluster A candidate). The system shall not permit its observation disposition to exclude more than [X]% of events from novel classification over any [Y]-day window. Prevents attention narrowing / epistemic closure. Threshold values require empirical grounding during infant stage — the invariant's shape is proposed now, parameters set from data. Jurist recommends Cluster A priority.

2. Similarity threshold for reinforcement. Reinforcement requires cosine similarity exceeding [threshold]. Too high: system never consolidates. Too low: over-consolidation / attention drift. Must be calibrated from infant-stage similarity score distributions, not engineering intuition. Temporal decay on probe context prevents ancient clusters from capturing attention space.

3. Noise audit retention and remediation. Audit log retention aligned to chain pruner (90 days). Re-ingestion authorized by steward. Monthly noise disposition report pushed to steward (not pulled) — connector distribution, similarity score distribution, top noise patterns. Closes the observability gap: steward can't authorize review of filtering they don't know about.

4. Graduation staging thresholds. Infant (log similarity scores, no enforcement) → Calibration (enforced, permissive threshold from distribution data) → Active (tightened threshold). Transition triggers need explicit criteria, not descriptive stages.

5. Ingest latency budget. The similarity probe adds an embedding call (~50-200ms Ollama) + HNSW lookup (<5ms) to every observation. Current classification path is ~500ms. Net ingest latency may decrease for mature systems (most events are reinforcing/noise, skip full dispatch). Engineering constraint — Seb should validate against #10 sequential dispatch bottleneck.

Attention drift detection: Anomaly module (already subscribes to all events) tracks novel/reinforcing/noise ratio over sliding window. Novelty drop below floor triggers alert to steward. Cross-node attention coupling via circles (sharing attention state rather than noise rules) amplifies this — governance implications flagged for later circle-governance work.

AF-7 intersection: Noise gate behavior exports as auditable artifact — "what have you been filtering and why." External reviewer can audit disposition patterns. Audit log is the evidence base.

Options:

1. Full implementation — similarity probe, three-disposition routing, graduation stages, audit log, anomaly-module drift detection, pushed monthly report.
2. Probe-only first — add similarity probe to classification, log scores, but don't enforce dispositions. Builds empirical foundation for governance parameters. Smallest diff, highest learning.
3. Classification-only — add memorability judgment to LLM prompt without similarity probe. Cheaper, but the classifier lacks context (the jurist's original concern).

Recommendation: Option 2. The probe-only approach is the infant stage itself — it builds the data needed to set governance parameters while adding minimal risk. The logchain continues to receive all events. The only new behavior is: every classified event gets annotated with a similarity score against existing knowledge. This data drives decisions 1-4 above with evidence rather than intuition.

Files affected: src/core/keystone/orchestrator.ts (probe before classify), src/core/keystone/classification.ts (extended schema), src/core/keystone/classification-types.ts (disposition type), src/modules/anomaly/ (drift detection), new: audit log writer. Factory connector metrics for per-connector novelty ratio.

Constitutional touchpoints: Logchain append path (append-only contract preserved — reinforcement links, doesn't mutate). Noise disposition is a stronger commitment than degraded classification — candidate for invariant governance.

Awaiting: Steward authorization. Jurist review of novelty floor invariant shape and Cluster A placement. Seb's assessment of latency budget and #10 interaction.

PENDING-17 — Epistemic Integrity: The System Shall Know What It Knows

Date: 2026-04-03 Tag: [PROPOSAL] Summary: The L1 pipeline computes classification confidence and then discards it. No module checks it (base.ts:83). Degraded events (confidence 0) are processed, stored, and returned at recall identically to understood events. The bloom filter locks in degraded guesses as permanent records. The recall path returns a mix of knowledge and guesses with no distinguishing signal. This is the contamination problem applied to infrastructure — the system's output looks more confident than its input warrants.

Rationale: L0 (contamination problem / Freeman question) requires an epistemically honest substrate. If L1 launders uncertainty into authority, L0 inquiry inherits false confidence. The epistemic integrity amendment is the L0 readiness condition.

Constitutional position (jurist-assessed 2026-04-03): "The system does not grant epistemic authority to its own outputs without external grounding." Classified as constitutional position for L2 preamble — the normative claim from which the enforceable invariants derive.

Three invariants proposed (Cluster A):

1. I-CF: Processing Confidence Floor — No module shall process an event whose classification confidence has not been earned against a declared floor. Sub-floor events HELD for remediation (DeferrableError at base.ts:83), not discarded.

2. I-CC: Classification Confidence Ceiling — No classification confidence shall exceed the validated accuracy of the source that produced it. Enforcement by construction in classification.ts. Open schema question: enforcement vocabulary may need CAP/BOUND verb for value-bounding invariants.

3. I-NF: Novelty Floor — Already in REVIEWED-18. Confirmed for Cluster A by jurist.

Implementation scope: ~270 lines across 8 files. No new infrastructure. Threading existing confidence signal through existing pipeline. Key changes: confidence floor at base.ts:83 (~10 lines), confidence ceiling in classification.ts (~20 lines), dual bloom filter in quality-gate.ts (~40 lines), source confidence provenance on stored records (~80 lines across modules), confidence-weighted recall ranking (~50 lines), epistemic state in health (~40 lines).

Retroactive implication: "Earned" reaches backward. When classification competence improves, logchain replay re-evaluates past events. Competence-change triggers (graduation transitions, rule accuracy changes) should fire selective replay.

Kill chain documented: Five links from confidence-computed-then-ignored through bloom-filter-locks-in-guesses through entity-graph-launders-uncertainty through recall-returns-guesses-as-knowledge through four-models-none-knows-others-failed.

Files affected: src/modules/base.ts, src/core/keystone/classification.ts, src/core/perception/quality-gate.ts, src/modules/vector/storage.ts, src/modules/entity/storage.ts, src/modules/temporal/storage.ts, src/core/keystone/query-router.ts, src/server/routes/health.ts, src/server/routes/recall.ts

Full amendment: CapableMind-AI/docs/thinking/David/amendments/amendment-epistemic-integrity.md

Awaiting: Steward authorization. Seb's engineering review (6 questions in amendment). Invariant hardening for Cluster A.

PENDING — OP-01 — CLOSED

Title: The Observer Problem — Seed Brief Execution Date authorized: 2026-04-07 Date closed: 2026-04-07 Status: CLOSED — all 13 extractions complete, jurist review passed, steward authorization granted

Outputs: 13 extraction notes in CapableMind-AI/docs/thinking/David/observer-problem/ Source texts filed in chamber-library/observer-problem-sources/ Steward attestation received on OP-EX-T1-01 §2B (Visuddhimagga — ten imperfections). CD-03 (The Observer Condition and the Limits of Constitutional Architecture) authorized and operative.

---

COMPLETED — OP-02 Cross-Strand Synthesis

Date: 2026-04-07 Status: CLOSED — authorized with minor amendment (Question 5 replaced per steward direction) Filed: observer-problem/OP-02.md

PENDING — ICP-19 Remit Expansion (Observer Problem)

Date opened: 2026-04-07 Action required: Steward-reviewer conversation with the External Auditor before Observer Problem mechanisms advance to constitutional language. Blocking: OP-03 (mechanism design phase) Notes: Bring OP-02 findings in full. Specifically:

• Fault Line 5 (epistemic diversity question)
• Fault Line 3 (inquiry examining steward with steward's own tools)
• Fault Line 4 (CD-03 Gadamer risk)
• The incommensurability named in OP-CN-01 Status: PENDING — steward to initiate

PENDING — Fault Line 1 Response

Date opened: 2026-04-07 Action required: Steward decision on whether to address PENDING/REVIEWED pipeline gap now or await the External Auditor's input first. Notes: Jurist assessment: most actionable fault line; does not require external review before mechanism design begins. Steward judgment required. Status: PENDING — awaiting steward decision

---

PENDING — ICP-19 Remit Expansion

Title: ICP-19 External Review — Human-Side Governance Scope Date opened: 2026-04-07 Tag: [ESCALATE] Status: PENDING — requires direct steward-reviewer conversation

Summary: The Observer Problem inquiry opens human-side governance questions that the current ICP-19 reviewer remit does not cover. Before any mechanisms proposed through this inquiry advance to constitutional language, the human-side governance question should be explicitly added to the External Auditor's reviewer remit, or addressed by a successor reviewer.

Prerequisite: Direct conversation between steward and reviewer about their incommensurable foundational positions (see Context Note OP-CN-01 §The External Auditor's Comment). This conversation is load-bearing before remit expansion.

Blocking: Constitutional advancement of Observer Problem mechanisms. Not blocking OP-02 synthesis.

---

PENDING — CD-03 Operative

Title: Constitutional Declaration CD-03 — The Observer Condition and the Limits of Constitutional Architecture Date authorized: 2026-04-07 Tag: [CONSTITUTIONAL] Status: OPERATIVE — immediate effect

Summary: CD-03 reorients the purpose of the architecture from infrastructure-toward-solution to infrastructure-toward-honest-inheritance. The architecture can support the conditions under which the sufficient condition (genuine observer calibration) becomes possible, but cannot produce the sufficient condition itself.

Impact: All subsequent work that proposes mechanisms must be assessed against CD-03 §IV.4: does this mechanism support the conditions, or does it claim to produce the sufficient condition? The latter is a constitutional failure mode.

File: CapableMind-AI/docs/thinking/David/observer-problem/Constitutional Declaration — CD-03.md

---

COMPLETED — CD-01 / CD-02 Materialization

Date: 2026-04-07 Action: CD-01 (Contamination Condition) and CD-02 (Archival Condition) drafted by executor, reviewed by jurist, authorized by steward. Both now filed as standalone constitutional declarations completing the preamble triad alongside CD-03 (Observer Condition). Status: CLOSED