David F GliddenandClaude Opus 5
62b92bd425
REVIEWED-85 was placed by the steward at 10:41 today; the wake flagged at 10:44 that /wrap-up SKILL.md was still untouched since 2026-07-07. Landing it. Precondition discharged first. The ruling states its own verification limit: the jurist could not read the skill files, so the /wrap-up §1.6 and /wake-up §2.a quotes underpinning Part III's "contradicts itself" claim were affirmed on timeline evidence rather than checked. Required before landing was mechanical containment-with-positive-control verification of exactly those quotes. Run: 7/7 contained verbatim against the live skills, 5/5 controls absent, instrument verified. §1.6 now carries the two-clause disjunctive test (the executor's own narrower single-clause alternative declined at the gate as less safe), the hard floor with its catch-all sharpened per Q4 and tied to the measured failure rather than left as open judgment, and all three instruments as mandatory. The lane is provisional pending the steward-jurist check-in. The §Important-constraints line still stated the blanket rule the ruling narrowed. Left alone it would have been a second live version of a governance rule inside the file that forbids exactly that. Reconciled, with a note saying why. First batch applied -- the four class-(i) proposals the steward raised 2026-07-29 and which REVIEWED-85 itself dispositions as batch 1, so their classification was ruled rather than self-assessed: a `## What held` ledger section (the ledger could previously only record debits), a `prevention` KG predicate capturing transfer between failure classes, one wake line surfacing it, and the retirement of the standing question's self-report framing in favour of the checkable form -- the last on the grounds contamination-problem.md gives, that direct self-report is the most contaminated form of inquiry. The FIX-lane index is created and carries all four. It records explicitly what is NOT in it: the §1.6 edit itself, which changed what the executor may do without asking and was therefore PROPOSAL by its own test. A lane cannot authorize its own construction. Register rows 174-177 marked applied. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WuMjg3ipEVa3n8CoSzoyvc
3.0 KiB
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 |
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.