dotfiles/claude/memory/skill-harvest-fix-lane-index.md

Skill-harvest FIX-lane index

Append-only. One line per skill change applied under the /wrap-up §1.6 FIX lane. This is the record the steward–jurist check-in reads; a FIX applied without a line here is a governance failure, not a shortcut.

Authority: PENDING-88 → jurist design gate PASSED with conditions → REVIEWED-85 (steward-placed 2026-08-02). The lane is PROVISIONAL until that check-in — after the first batch or one month, whichever comes first.

A change belongs in the lane only if it clears the two-clause test (does this change what the executor may do without asking, or what a governed artifact asserts? — either clause yes → PROPOSAL) and the hard floor. When in doubt, propose.

#	Skill	What changed	Date	Batch
1	symmetria §4 (ledger template)	Added a standing ## What held section — instruments that fired prospectively, lessons that transferred to a failure class they were not built for. Entry format: banked-lesson → what it caught → what it would have cost. Without it the ledger can only record debits; six hand-added ## Progress headings were the practice compensating for the schema gap.	2026-08-02	1
2	/wrap-up §5 (KG append)	Added a prevention predicate — {subject: <banked lesson>, predicate: "prevention", object: <the failure it stopped, and where>}. Distinct from drift-pattern-good-direction: that records a good move, this records transfer, which the schema could not previously capture.	2026-08-02	1
3	/wake-up §2.b.2	Surface one prevention alongside the drift-patterns, one line each way. The wake previously grepped only drift-pattern, so every session opened by re-reading what went wrong and never what compounded.	2026-08-02	1
4	/wrap-up §1 (literal question)	Retired the self-report framing of the standing question. contamination-problem.md names direct self-report the most contaminated form of inquiry; the guidance now prefers the checkable form the same evidence answers — does a lesson banked from one failure prevent a different failure later?	2026-08-02	1

Check-in agenda — what the steward–jurist review must cover

Batch 1 is complete, so the check-in is due. Two items, the second added by a later ruling:

1. The lane itself — do the four batch-1 changes hold up as class (i)? Was the two-clause test applied honestly, or rationalised around? Should the lane move from provisional to settled, be narrowed, or be withdrawn?

2. The retrieval obligation (REVIEWED-86 Q4). The jurist directed this be folded into this check-in rather than given a standalone cadence, on the explicit grounds that a new standing review is the shape of thing that produces another unread register. The obligation: the record is not just written, it is read. Its evidence is the eighteen-month gap between the steward recording "May smooth over tensions" (2025-01-20, in the right words, in a durable indexed file) and it reaching the doctrine that needed it. Recording was not the failure; retrieval was. The check-in should therefore ask what banked record bears on what we are about to decide, and who reads it — not merely confirm that things were written down.

Batch 1 — classification note

All four were raised by the steward on 2026-07-29 and dispositioned as the first FIX-lane batch by REVIEWED-85 itself, so their classification was ruled rather than self-assessed. Each is class (i) — a change to what a skill records, not to what it permits or requires. None touches an authorization boundary, gate criteria, Constraint 1, or the escalate list. None removes, defers, or narrows the visibility of an open item; #3 and the prevention predicate widen what reaches the steward.

Not in this index, deliberately: the §1.6 edit that created the lane. That change altered what the executor may do without asking, so it was [PROPOSAL] by its own test — filed as PENDING-88, design-gated by the jurist, authorized by the steward as REVIEWED-85. A lane cannot authorize its own construction.

• 2026-08-02 · ARC CLAUDE.md · removed js/ # JavaScript (theme toggle) from the asset-structure tree — directory absent, toggle retired Stage M 2026-06-01; replaced with a retirement note. Mechanical freshness; no latitude or assertion change.
• /wrap-up §8 — added standing Instruments field (N run · M with a control written before first execution · K duplicating something already banked). Converts the 2026-08-07 one-off literal question into a series, and turns the steward's "do we need so many single-use items?" into a measured K column rather than a standing worry. — 2026-08-08
• 2026-08-24 · /wrap-up §7.5 + daybook-ensure.py SKELETON · added a standing ## Corrections section to the daily-note format, with the rule that an empty Corrections on a working day is itself a claim · applied on direct steward instruction, reasoning from the jurist (REVIEWED-126) — recorded here rather than in the lane proper, since it was authorized rather than executor-classified. Changes what the note records, not what any party may do.

FIX-LANE CHECK-IN — REVIEWED-85 provisional review, 30 days overdue

Date: 2026-09-01 · Parties: steward + jurist · Discharges: REVIEWED-85's provisional condition; the DEFERRED-DECISION: fix-lane-provisional-checkin block filed at PENDING-168 ADDENDUM 1.

Item 1 — the lane. EXTENDED PROVISIONAL, not settled and not withdrawn. The lane has been exercised by the executor exactly once in thirty days (the 2026-08-08 Instruments field); batch 1 was ruled by REVIEWED-85, the Corrections entry was steward-instructed, the ARC entry is mechanical freshness. n=1 is not evidence either way.

• The 2026-08-08 entry is RATIFIED on the merits as class (i), and its procedure is recorded as defective: it was executor-classified under a lapsed authorization, against the lane's own instruction to treat borderline calls as PROPOSAL until review. Not precedent.
• The trigger is re-based from time to use: next check-in at 5 executor classifications, backstop 2026-12-01, whichever first. The original date trigger fired twice with nothing recorded; a use-count trigger cannot be missed by being busy. Filed as a DEFERRED-DECISION block in the same act. ⚠ The use-count half is not expressible in the current schema and carries no machine check — see the note beside the block in PENDING.md. No proxy was invented.
• Boundary flagged, not reopened: batch-1 #4 changed the standing wrap question, which is what the executor must inquire into, not what a skill records. It was ruled class (i) by REVIEWED-85 and stands. It marks where class (i) ends, and the next hard classification should be measured against it rather than against #1–#3.

Item 2 — the retrieval obligation (REVIEWED-86 Q4). NOT DISCHARGED. Answered with two fresh instances rather than a confirmation: REVIEWED-67's Q4 census and its unconditioned per-conversion typography gate did not reach the PDF lane in 42 days, and PENDING-177 AMENDMENT 1 records it as the identical PENDING-56 failure in a second format class. The cost is measured — verify_conversion returning 5/5 PASS on word-damaged output.

• The machinery is not missing; the question is. Batch-1 #2 and #3 built prevention and put it in the wake for this purpose. What has no surface is the class-level question at the point of adoption: what standing rule already governs the class I am about to route?
• Directed to the wrap/wake surface, deliberately not as a new instrument and not as a new item. It is one question in an existing skill. ⚠ Placement is unresolved and is flagged rather than guessed — see the executor note below.

⚠ EXECUTOR NOTE — item 2's natural home is frozen. "What standing rule already governs this class?" is a verification-ladder entry by shape, and the ladder is under a general freeze (REVIEWED-123, 2026-08-17: no additions, rewordings, removals or reorderings from any source until the trial is graded). Placing it in /wrap-up or /wake-up instead is available but fires at the wrong moment — the failure it addresses happens at adoption, not at wake or wrap. Not placed. Awaiting direction on where it goes. Recording the mismatch rather than putting it somewhere it will be decorative.