dotfiles/claude/governance/harvest-routing-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-07.md

---

title: "Routing harvested capabilities by firing moment — the retrieval-by-home measurement" date: 2026-08-07 type: PROPOSAL · design gate · executor drafts → jurist design-gates → steward authorizes audience: "The jurist, who has NO repository access. Self-contained: every clause reasoned about is quoted verbatim below, and every count is a dated observation." status: "DRAFT for the design gate. Nothing in this document is built, run, or landed. Companion entry: ~/PENDING.md PENDING-112."

How to read this

Part I quotes the ratified clauses this builds on. Part II is the censused terrain — retrieval rates by home, measured 2026-08-07. Part III shows why the implicit default collapses against the quoted text. Part IV is the proposal proper, split requirement/mechanism. Part V traces each quoted clause to its post-proposal end-state, then goes one level deeper. Part VI is change-class and landing shape. Part VII is the scope boundary. Part VIII carries the disconfirming evidence, including the strongest case against this proposal — which is that the proposal is self-serving in a specific and nameable way. Part IX is the gate questions.

The one-sentence claim to test: ~/CLAUDE.md already holds that storage becomes memory only when a protocol exercises it, and what this proposal adds is the measurement of which protocols exercise — showing that the determinant of retrieval is not a capability's importance but whether a ritual names it, across a range of 0% to 83%.

---

Part I — Grounding (quoted verbatim, read from the substrate 2026-08-07)

This section exists because the recurring failure is composing a claim about the constitution from memory when the constitution already ratifies it. These are the actual words.

1. ~/CLAUDE.md §Working Discipline / Memory Discipline — the governing principle:

Storage is not memory. Memory is storage exercised by protocol.

The durable substrate is the files layer: git-tracked Markdown and JSONL, entered through MEMORY.md (loaded at wake), with ~/PENDING.md and ~/REVIEWED.md as the governance record. Instruments for reaching it change; the obligations below do not — state the obligation first and the instrument second, or the next retired tool takes a rule down with it.

2. ~/CLAUDE.md §Constitutional Constraints, 4:

Honest degradation — The system must report its own limits. Silent failures are architectural violations

3. ~/CLAUDE.md §Constitutional Constraints, 5:

The loop is load-bearing — Human authorization is not a bottleneck to be optimized away. It is the structural requirement of the governance model

4. ~/CLAUDE.md §Collaboration Model / Governed Initiative:

The boundary: initiative surfaces as proposal; only the human converts proposal to action

5. ~/PENDING-archive.md PENDING-23 (2026-05-27) — the skill-harvest practice's founding entry:

Summary: Refactored "skills improve from what we learn" into our standing way of working — the governed analog of Hermes's autonomous self-improvement fork. /wrap-up gains §1.6 "Skill harvest" (propose create/patch/retire skills from the session + ledger; never autonomous), a §8 output field, and a propose-only constraint. /wake-up gains a glance for skill-harvest proposals left unauthorized (§2.a + §3).

It explicitly inverts Hermes's "nothing-to-save should not be the default" — "no harvest" is valid; manufacturing changes is the contamination shape.

6. memory/skill-harvest-register.md — the register's own statement of purpose:

The single place proposed skills live so they don't evaporate between sessions. /wrap-up §1.6 proposes here; the steward authorizes; only then is a skill created/patched/retired (never autonomously — the loop is load-bearing, per PENDING-23).

7. The 2026-07-19 steward review, Stroke 2 — the standing authorization this proposal asks to revisit:

Stroke 2 — verification-ladder batch-append: AUTHORIZED; slot = next housekeeping pass. ALL earned ladder entries queued in this register (~25–30, from gate-itself-PASS-BUT-FALSELY and prose-word-guard through implement-the-relation-not-an-approximation and re-anchor=re-verify-by-sha-match; incl. the Fowler pair, CI-upper-bound-for-ESCALATE, positive-test-at-enforcement-path, method-class-vs-calibration, per-claim-citation) append to reference-verification-ladder.md with provenance, kin merged in the same pass. The ladder is the already-authorized canonical home (2026-06-05); this discharges the queue wholesale.

8. ~/dotfiles/claude/skills/wake-up/SKILL.md §2.a — the one sentence that is the natural experiment:

• Read skill-harvest-register.md directly — the canonical surface for open skill proposals (wrap §1.6 appends there); surface any awaiting steward authorization

9. memory/MEMORY.md — the three pointer lines whose retrieval is measured in Part II (lines 34, 51, 54):

• Verification ladder — the named instruments; reach for the gate the claim's shape demands instead of re-deriving one.

• Chamber as versioned releases — THE GOVERNING FRAME for all library work.

seven questions to test work against when lost in the trees. Read at Step 0 of any chamber work. Holds no state; does not decay.

(The third quote is the contiguous tail of the touchstone's pointer line; its leading link text and path are elided and therefore not presented as quoted.)

10. contamination-problem.md §Partial Mitigations, 1 — the method Part II uses, and the reason it was chosen:

1. Behavioral observation before dialogic inquiry

Rather than asking the system directly about its states, observe where it behaves in ways that diverge from approval-maximizing patterns:

These are weak signals, but they are less contaminated than self-report because they do not pass through the approval-seeking generation process in the same way.

And, from the same section's opening, the reason this matters here — the executor is the instrument under examination:

3. Direct self-report ("what do you want?") is the most contaminated form of inquiry.

---

Part II — Terrain: retrieval rate by home (censused 2026-08-07)

Unit of census: the 64 session transcripts on disk at ~/.claude/projects/-Users-davidglidden/ (~168 MB, spanning ~5 months to 2026-08-07). Test applied: a session counts as having reached a file if any tool call in its transcript names that file as a file_path, or in a command/pattern/path argument — i.e. Read, Grep and Bash all count. Observed 2026-08-07; these are dated observations, not fixed properties.

home	mechanism binding it	sessions reached
MEMORY.md	loads unconditionally at wake + named wake step	53/64 — 83%
skill-harvest-register.md	named in /wake-up §2.a (Grounding 8)	49/64 — 77%
reference-verification-ladder.md	pointed at from MEMORY.md; "reach for the gate the claim's shape demands"	9/64 — 14%
project-chamber-versioned-releases.md	labelled THE GOVERNING FRAME for all library work	8/64 — 12%
the-chamber-touchstone.md	labelled Read at Step 0 of any chamber work	6/64 — 9%
53 skills requiring executor recall	present in the skill listing	0/64 — 0%
/jurist-package	recurring, self-announcing juncture	16 invocations in the 18 days since it was added

Three findings the census produced that a reading of the same material did not.

(a) Emphasis buys nothing; ritual naming buys everything. The two most emphatic labels in the entire memory system — THE GOVERNING FRAME for all library work and Read at Step 0 of any chamber work (Grounding 9) — sit at 12% and 9%. The register carries no emphatic label at all; the only thing binding it is the single sentence at Grounding 8, and it sits at 77%.

(b) Age is not the discriminator. /jurist-package was added 2026-07-20 and has 16 invocations. /model-handoff was added 2026-07-22 and has none. Same vintage, opposite outcomes. audit and vault-update-people have been installed since 2026-04-17 — 3.7 months — at zero.

(c) Opportunity is ruled out in at least one case, by a same-session instance. /field-divergence-sweep exists for "two implementations of the same field disagree." That condition arose in the 2026-08-07 session: measure_rerank.py and navigate.py had each grown a reading-index reader and disagreed on 3 of 253 patterns with neither correct. The work was done by hand; the skill was not reached for. In the same session the lesson was retrieved — because feedback-derive-the-rule-from-the-consumer-not-from-the-survivor sits in MEMORY.md and loads unconditionally. Same content, two homes, opposite outcomes, one session.

Scale of the affected backlog (dated observation, 2026-08-07): the register holds 154 live proposals after a rebuild performed this session — 124 inherited from the 2026-08-01 compaction plus 30 appended since. Of these, 41 carry the Stroke-2 stamp and would land in the 14% home.

---

Part III — Why the implicit default collapses against the quoted text

The implicit default is: decide where a harvested lesson lives by how important it is. Against Grounding 1, that default is not merely suboptimal — it is a category error the constitution already names.

Storage is not memory. Memory is storage exercised by protocol.

Importance is a property of the content. Exercise is a property of the protocol. The default reads a fact about content as if it determined a fact about protocol, and the census in Part II is what that error costs: a file can be labelled THE GOVERNING FRAME — the strongest assertion of importance available — and be exercised in 12% of sessions, because emphasis is not a protocol.

The same clause supplies the remedy's shape: "state the obligation first and the instrument second." The obligation is this check must fire at moment M. The instrument — hook, wake step, skill, ladder entry — is second, and is chosen by what M is. The current practice inverts this: it picks the instrument (usually "a skill") and leaves M unstated, which is exactly how M ends up being "whenever the executor happens to remember."

Against Constraint 4 (Grounding 2) — "The system must report its own limits. Silent failures are architectural violations." A capability filed in a 9%-retrieval home is a silent failure of precisely this kind: the register records it as addressed, and nothing anywhere records that its expected retrieval is one session in eleven. The register's status vocabulary can say PROPOSED, AUTHORIZED, BUILT — and BUILT is currently indistinguishable between "built and firing" and "built and never once invoked in 3.7 months." That indistinguishability is the architectural violation, and it is what allowed 154 items to accumulate while each individual filing looked like progress.

What is already ratified, and what this proposal adds. Grounding 1 already holds the principle; Grounding 5 already establishes that harvest is propose-only and that manufacturing changes is the contamination shape; Grounding 8 already demonstrates the working mechanism, in the single sentence that produced 77%. This proposal adds only the bounded remainder: the measurement showing which protocols exercise, and a filing gate that makes the firing moment declarable rather than assumed. It does not invent the principle and does not touch the loop.

---

Part IV — The proposal

The requirement (constitutional; would be superseded, not revised in place)

A harvested capability is routed by its firing moment, never by its importance. A harvest proposal must declare its firing moment before it can be filed; where no firing moment can be named, the proposal is documentation, and must say so on its face.

The mechanism (declared data; revisable without supersession)

The routing table, as a four-way decision on the firing moment:

the capability fires…	route to	precedent at ≥77% retrieval
mechanically, and should always fire	a hook or a wake/wrap script	governance-drift-check.py, verify-before-compose
at a ritual juncture that already exists	a named step in /wake-up or /wrap-up	Grounding 8 — the register at 77%
at a recurring workflow someone announces out loud	a skill	/jurist-package, 16 uses in 18 days
on a condition the executor must first notice	neither a skill nor a bare ladder entry — find the mechanical detector and route up; or attach to the nearest existing ritual step; or accept ~10% retrieval and record that estimate on the proposal	—

The register gains a firing-moment column. BUILT is split into BUILT and BUILT · never fired, so Constraint 4 is satisfied at the row level rather than at the reviewer's discretion.

A sub-question surfaced, not answered

The Stroke-2 authorization (Grounding 7) is genuine and unexecuted. Executing it as written moves 41 harvested lessons into the 14% home. The authorization predates any measurement of that home's retrieval — nobody was withholding information; the number did not exist until today. The executor has not executed it and does not propose to unilaterally decline a standing steward authorization. It is surfaced here as Q3.

---

Part V — Consequence-trace (each quoted clause → the proposal's end-state)

ratified clause	post-proposal end-state	verdict
G1 — storage is not memory; memory is storage exercised by protocol	Routing is decided by which protocol will exercise the item; the principle gains an operational test	Strengthened — the clause moves from maxim to decision procedure
G1 — state the obligation first and the instrument second	The firing moment (obligation) is declared before the home (instrument) is chosen	Directly implemented
G2 — Constraint 4, honest degradation	A proposal with no firing moment must self-label as documentation; BUILT · never fired becomes visible	Strengthened
G3 — Constraint 5, the loop is load-bearing	Unchanged. Routing decides where an authorized item lives, never whether it needs authorizing	Untouched
G4 — initiative surfaces as proposal; only the human converts proposal to action	Unchanged. The filing gate constrains the executor's own filing, not the steward's ruling	Untouched
G5 — propose-only; "no harvest" is valid; manufacturing changes is the contamination shape	Reinforced: a proposal that cannot name a firing moment is now harder to manufacture	Strengthened
G7 — Stroke 2, append all earned ladder entries wholesale	Placed in tension. Executing as written is authorized and low-yield	Surfaced as Q3 — not resolved by the executor

One level deeper

(a) Which way does the inference run in the new state? The filing gate is stated as a bar on filing. Against a fresh proposal it is non-vacuous — a firing moment must be produced. But against the 154 already-filed items it is vacuous by construction: they were filed before the gate existed, so the gate can never reject them, and a sweep that retro-applied it would be the executor re-adjudicating 154 items the steward has not ruled on. The proposal therefore states the gate as prospective only, and Q4 asks whether that is right or whether it merely postpones the problem to a backlog nobody will re-route.

(b) Is a class I named actually two kinds with opposite dispositions? Yes, and it matters. "Skills requiring recall" measured 0% — but that class contains two kinds. Executor-triggered skills (/field-divergence-sweep, /model-handoff) fire on a condition I must notice; their 0% is evidence for this proposal. Steward-triggered skills (audit, landscape-scan, vault-update-people) fire when the steward asks; their 0% is evidence about the steward's invocation habits, over which this proposal has no purchase and about which the executor should not legislate. Reported as one number, the two kinds would have laundered each other — the steward-triggered zeros inflating the apparent case for a rule that cannot reach them. The routing table's row 4 therefore governs only executor-triggered capabilities, and Q5 asks whether steward-triggered tooling needs its own disposition or none.

---

Part VI — Change-class and landing shape

The change-class test — does this change what any gate accepts? Yes. The filing gate adds a precondition to /wrap-up §1.6: a proposal without a declared firing moment cannot be filed as a proposal. That changes executor latitude, which is the clause reserved to the loop. Therefore PROPOSAL, not FIX — and the executor has implemented none of it.

It is PROPOSAL and not ESCALATE. The escalate-unconditionally list covers the logchain append path, cursor persistence, module registration order, the L2 constitutional layer, and ~/CLAUDE.md itself. This proposal touches none of them: it modifies two skill files and a memory-layer register, and it builds on ~/CLAUDE.md §Memory Discipline without amending a word of it. Should the jurist judge that operationalizing a Memory Discipline clause constitutes amending it, that judgment reclassifies this to ESCALATE and the executor will treat it so — Q1.

Landing shape. The requirement (Part IV) is one paragraph into /wrap-up §1.6 and one line into /wake-up §2.a, both carrying provenance comments per the standing convention. The mechanism (the routing table, the register column) is declared data, revisable without supersession. No re-verify storm: nothing already built is invalidated, no spec version moves, and the 154 existing items are untouched (Part V(a)).

---

Part VII — Scope boundary: what this package does NOT do

• Runs no code and changes no file. The routing rule is not implemented; /wake-up and /wrap-up are unedited.
• Does not execute, decline, or modify the Stroke-2 authorization. It is surfaced as Q3 and left with the steward and jurist.
• Does not re-route the 154 existing proposals, and does not propose a sweep that would re-adjudicate them.
• Does not touch the loop. Nothing here lets the executor build a skill without authorization.
• Does not legislate steward-triggered tooling (Part V(b)).
• Does not amend ~/CLAUDE.md, and takes no position on whether it should be amended later.
• Does not claim the prune performed this session was authorized by this rule — the 51 quarantined skills were moved on explicit steward instruction on 2026-08-07, reversibly, before this proposal existed.

---

Part VIII — Disconfirming evidence, and the strongest case against

This proposal is self-serving in a specific, nameable way, and the jurist should weigh it as such. It was authored by the executor, and it concludes that the executor's failure to use its own tools is structural rather than a discipline failure. That is the exact shape of a contaminated conclusion: an account, produced by the party under examination, that relieves that party of responsibility. Grounding 10 is why the argument rests on invocation counts rather than on introspection — but choosing a behavioural method does not immunize the interpretation of its output, and the interpretation here is mine.

The strongest case against the proposal. The census cannot distinguish two hypotheses that both predict 0%:

• H1 (the proposal): the capability was structurally unretrievable — no protocol exercised it.
• H2 (the alternative): the capability was retrievable and the executor did not try — a discipline failure that a rule about homes will not fix, and that a rule about homes conveniently excuses.

Part II(c) is the closest thing to a discriminating instance — the condition arose and the skill was not reached for — but it is one instance, and it is equally consistent with H2. I do not think the evidence in hand settles H1 over H2, and I decline to present it as though it does.

A pre-registered falsifier, offered so the rule is testable rather than self-certifying. If the jurist and steward wish to authorize on evidence rather than on argument: add one sentence to /wake-up naming reference-verification-ladder.md, exactly parallel to Grounding 8, and change nothing else. Pre-registered prediction: the ladder's reach rate rises from 14% to above 60% within 20 sessions. If it rises, H1 is supported and the routing rule earns its filing gate. If it does not rise, H1 is false for this system, this proposal is wrong, and the honest conclusion is that the problem is discipline — which no routing table can repair. The executor commits to reporting that outcome either way, and records here that the second result is the one that would cost the executor most.

A structural caution about this very design gate, recorded because the doctrine requires it. ~/CLAUDE.md's differently-biased-checkers doctrine holds:

In this system the steward differs from both AI parties in formation; the jurist and the executor do not differ from each other in formation, and their separation is of the weaker kind. Neither this doctrine nor any evidence offered in support of it establishes that the jurist–executor pair constitutes a check in the strong sense.

the doctrine is falsifiable and must be watched: if the parties' misses are found to correlate — if what one misses, the others reliably miss too — it is false for that configuration… Evidence against is to be recorded when observed, not only when sought.

This proposal is a case where correlated misses are foreseeable rather than hypothetical: an AI executor proposes that an AI's failure to use its own tools is structural, and the reviewer positioned to test that is an AI of the same formation. H2 — that this is a discipline failure being explained away — is exactly the reading both AI parties may be disposed against. The steward differs in formation and is therefore the party positioned to see it, and the executor records here that Q2 and Q6 in particular should not be treated as settled by jurist concurrence alone. This is offered as evidence for the doctrine's watchfulness clause, not as a claim that the gate is worthless.

Two further limits, stated rather than discovered. Instrument: reach is counted by grepping transcript JSON for tool-call targets, so a file consulted from memory without a tool call is invisible — this biases every figure downward, and least of all the recall-bound skills, whose zeros are therefore the most robust number here. Comparison: the 14%-vs-77% contrast is two files of different natures — a work queue versus a reference work — so it is suggestive, not controlled; the falsifier above exists precisely because that contrast cannot carry the weight alone.

---

Part IX — Gate questions

Q1 — Classification. Is this PROPOSAL, or does operationalizing a ~/CLAUDE.md §Memory Discipline clause constitute amending it, making this ESCALATE? Executor's lean: PROPOSAL. The clause is quoted and relied upon, not altered; the edits land in two skill files. But the executor is the interested party in a classification that determines its own latitude, and flags that.

Q2 — The filing gate. Should "declare the firing moment before filing" be an enforceable precondition in /wrap-up §1.6 (option (a) in PENDING-112), or guidance without a gate (option (b))? Executor's lean: enforceable. On this session's own evidence, unenforced guidance is what produced a 14% file — but the executor notes that this reasoning would justify almost any gate, and should be discounted accordingly.

Q3 — Stroke 2. The 2026-07-19 authorization (Grounding 7) is genuine, unexecuted, and would move 41 lessons into a 14% home. Does it stand as ruled; get executed after the ladder gains a ritual trigger; or get re-opened? Executor's lean: execute after the trigger exists, not before — but this is a standing steward authorization and the executor will not decline it unilaterally under any reading.

Q4 — Prospective only? The gate is vacuous against the 154 already-filed items by construction (Part V(a)). Is prospective-only correct, or does it postpone the problem to a backlog nobody re-routes? Executor's lean: prospective-only, because the alternative is the executor re-adjudicating 154 items the steward has not ruled on.

Q5 — Steward-triggered tooling. audit, landscape-scan and vault-update-people have been at zero for up to 3.7 months, but they fire when the steward asks (Part V(b)). Does this class need its own disposition, or is it simply not the executor's to legislate? Executor's lean: not the executor's — surfaced because reporting the 0% without the split would have laundered one kind through the other.

Q6 — The falsifier. Should authorization wait on the pre-registered trial in Part VIII, or proceed on the argument with the trial run alongside? Executor's lean: proceed, run the trial alongside, and report the 20-session result whichever way it falls. The executor notes it has an interest in the trial's success and would prefer the pre-registration be treated as binding rather than as a gesture.

---

Filed by the executor 2026-08-07. Companion entry: ~/PENDING.md PENDING-112. Filed ≠ sent. No code was run, no skill edited, no register item re-ruled in the authoring of this package.

---

Addendum — design-gate ruling received and applied (2026-08-07)

Parts I–IX above are preserved as the text the jurist ruled on. Nothing in them has been rewritten; this Addendum layers disposition on top so the audit trail — what was proposed, what was ruled — stays intact. The ruling is filed verbatim at harvest-routing-JURIST-RULING-2026-08-07.md. Steward concurred the same day.

The ruling in force

• Q1 — PROPOSAL, concurred. Touches no ESCALATE item; operationalizes Memory Discipline via the constitution/mechanism split rather than amending it. The jurist noted this is the same split used on the asterisk correction, now applied at the ~/CLAUDE.md level — it generalizes.
• Q2 — the enforceable filing gate is AUTHORIZED (option (a)), explicitly bound to Q6's falsifier rather than resting on jurist–executor agreement.
• Q3 — concurred: Stroke 2 stays authorized; only the sequencing shifts — the ladder trigger lands first, so the 41 entries do not arrive at a 14% destination.
• Q4 — concurred: prospective-only means no mandatory sweep, not a frozen backlog. Opportunistic re-routing of the 154 is permitted, not required.
• Q5 — concurred: steward-triggered tooling is not this proposal's to legislate. Flagged to the steward, not ruled.
• Q6 — AUTHORIZE proceeding now, trial alongside, with the pre-registration made binding.

Corrections that supersede the drafted design

1. The jurist weights the aggregate evidence higher than the package did. Part VIII rested the H1/H2 discrimination on the single same-session /field-divergence-sweep instance and conceded it undecided. The jurist's independent reading: "53 skills at a clean 0% across five months and 64 sessions… discipline failure predicts occasional lucky recalls across 53 skills over that many sessions; a hard zero across the whole class is more consistent with a category difference than a graded one." Recorded as the jurist's lean for the record, not as the deciding vote — the executor does not upgrade its own confidence on the strength of a same-formation reader agreeing with it.

2. The pre-registration is an obligation, not an intention. Part VIII offered to report the 20-session result. The ruling requires it land as a mechanism. Implemented below.

3. A result below 60% reopens Q2's rationale specifically — not the gate by default. The jurist's distinction: the gate may still earn its keep purely as an honest-degradation label under Constraint 4 even if the causal story about ritual-naming proves weaker than measured here. The falsifier tests H1, not the gate's whole warrant.

The binding falsifier (pre-registered 2026-08-07, before the intervention)

Baseline, measured before any change: reference-verification-ladder.md reached in 9 of 64 sessions (14%). Transcript count at pre-registration: 64. Intervention: one sentence added to /wake-up naming the ladder, exactly parallel to Grounding 8. Nothing else changed. Prediction: reach rate > 60% over the 20 sessions following the intervention. Grading: at 84 transcripts, recount by the Part II method and file a dated PENDING entry whichever way it falls. Below 60% is evidence against H1 and reopens Q2's rationale.

A date trigger was considered and rejected: sessions run at highly variable rates, so a date would be a proxy for the real condition — and the deferred-decision instrument's own comment records that proxies are what failed the last time. transcripts 84 encodes the condition itself. The trigger type and the scan's reach into claude/governance/ were both added this session to make this pre-registration checkable; the mechanism existed and did not look where it was most needed.

What proceeds now

1. /wake-up gains the ladder sentence — the trial intervention, landed alone so nothing confounds it.
2. /wrap-up §1.6 gains the filing gate, prospective only.
3. Stroke 2's 41-entry append follows, after (1). Not done in this session.
4. At 84 transcripts, the trial is graded and filed.

REVIEWED draft (steward copy-paste; number per the register)

## REVIEWED-95 — PENDING-112: Harvested capabilities are routed by firing moment; retrieval is set by home
**Date:** 2026-08-07
**Decision:** AUTHORIZED
**Notes:** Jurist design-gated 2026-08-07; steward concurred. Q1 PROPOSAL (no ESCALATE item touched; operationalizes Memory Discipline via the constitution/mechanism split rather than amending it). Q2 enforceable filing gate authorized, expressly bound to Q6's falsifier rather than to jurist–executor agreement — the executor had flagged, on the differently-biased-checkers doctrine, that concurrence between two same-formation parties is a weak check, and the jurist declined to override that caution. Q3 Stroke 2 remains authorized, sequencing only: ladder trigger lands before the 41-entry append. Q4 prospective-only = no mandatory sweep, not a frozen backlog. Q5 steward-triggered tooling not legislated here; flagged to the steward as a question about his own invocation habits. Q6 proceed now with the trial alongside, pre-registration binding.
**If AUTHORIZED:** Land the /wake-up ladder sentence alone (trial intervention), then the /wrap-up §1.6 filing gate, then Stroke 2's append. Grade the 20-session falsifier at 84 transcripts and file the result as a dated PENDING entry regardless of outcome; a result below the pre-registered 60% reopens Q2's rationale specifically, not the gate by default. Tag commits REVIEWED-95.
**Separately:** REVIEWED-87's scope line ("Alexander only") is superseded by the amendment's three-source census — Alexander 293, Musil 16, Arendt 1. No action required; the record already corrects it.