The jurist owned this mismatch and scheduled it after the beacon so no edit would
touch the filed rule before it fired. It fired at 12:00Z; this is that harmonization.
v2 §4 step 3 said "Abandonment criterion" while §10 defined RETIREMENT.
Censused before editing rather than sed'd. All 24 abandon* occurrences in the fool
tree were counted and read in context: 9 were doctrine and changed; 13 in the trial-09
family were LEFT — that is the word §6 of the trial design owns, in its own sense about
the jester form, and a blanket replace would have silently collided the two meanings it
was supposed to separate. 1 in input-dependence-01 is ordinary English about the void of
a numbering. 1 in FOOL-BONES is the dated record of what was owed.
Prior wording preserved in place at every changed site. REVIEWED-125 ruled on the v2
draft's text; an untraceable edit drifts a ruling's subject away from its artifact, which
is the PENDING-82/86 hazard this item's own record already notes recurring inside a
ruling. The criterion is unchanged — only the word naming it.
Separately, found while in the file: §6 "What has NOT happened" asserted the pulse had
not been fetched and no bones derived. Both went false at 12:00Z today. Marked superseded
in part, bullets struck rather than deleted since they are the pre-registration record,
and pointed at FOOL-BONES for current state. A governance doc asserting stale current
state is what Constraint 4 forbids.
New §7 logs every post-beacon edit to the filed rule, so "filed and pushed before the
beacon" stays auditable instead of eroding one silent correction at a time. Its claim
that §1/§2/§2a/§3/§5/§5a are untouched was verified by reading the diff hunks against
the pre-edit section map, not asserted.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J6hZXNYSxEfZseBGTni4sf
