The heading read "Two corrections to the v2 §6b block — RULED, no veto" while
the ruling beneath it addressed only the retrieval URL. Its settling test —
"could this correction have moved the outcome?" — returns no for the URL and
YES for the provenance commit, since the provenance SHA is half the seed
string. The heading therefore claimed a scope the ruling could not reach.
Jurist confirmed 2026-08-23: "I ruled on one thing. The URL." The provenance
commit was never a correction under veto — the steward selected a still-open
value on the jurist's recommendation, before filing. It is now recorded as a
steward decision of 2026-08-22, with its reasoning, because a value that moves
the outcome must be attributable to the party entitled to choose it.
Verified independently against git, not relayed:
4d2ae87 = 2026-07-28 11:32:39 +0200; trial 01 = 2026-08-01 (four days later)
last commit to CLAUDE.md before trial 01 (next is c30dfe0, 2026-08-02)
"Differently biased checkers": 0 at 4d2ae87, 1 at 3b0730d5
blob SHA re-derived = 2d6e250a...120d, matches the filed value
EDIT IS INERT WITH RESPECT TO THE DRAW, proven rather than asserted. The filed
discipline is that no edit touches this rule before it fires; derive_fool.py
does not read this document — it hardcodes its constants and recomputes the
provenance SHA from git — so prose cannot steer the draw. Same synthetic
vector before and after gives the identical seed
3d8cc243f9b6ffc5fc7d254306ca4ca135a71d76d483df924736a18345fb8b7a;
selftest passes; diff removes no constant line.
rule sha256 before: e1fa6fb3e4f928e468dc102f011d554c20eb14d9b49c17ce1f6f839106179bff
rule sha256 after: fb11818dd2e3c2bdcf21e2740fc3110a7aa9a9ead57098a93f27b9051d438551
The synthetic vector above is not a pulse and its output is not bones.
Refs PENDING-150 AMENDMENT 2/3, REVIEWED-125 AMENDMENT 1.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01JQKeKY9T9d95KpvHwwok8T
