Jurist ruling accepted in full on all six questions.
Q1: the variable is right, the derivation is not. §6.2 is PRE-REGISTERED, and a
test that changes stratum-B membership, derived after reading the spans it
reclassifies and entering by interpretation, voids that guarantee whether or not
the test is right. Filed as PENDING-134 — new doctrine, dated, with §7.4(ii) as
SUPPORTING ARGUMENT rather than derivation and §6.2's double omission recorded
as the counter-argument heard and overruled. The decisive form of that objection
is the jurist's: §6.2 admits F5 as 'qualified span (F5)', a construction that
would have admitted 'reported-speech span (F4)' and was in use one item away.
Q3: ran the fused-claim test on instance 8's fragments. It goes against
retention — fragment 2 opens on the tail of the carpenter's speech with NO
attributing clause before reaching Mauss's conclusion. The B4 shape. PENDING-132
amended: the retention is split out, and the retraction re-grounded on two
convergent bases so it is authorizable regardless of how 134 resolves.
133: rescoped from two F4-carrying spans to every fr grounded span, because the
bound assumed P7's tagging was complete and the item's own diagnosis says it had
no claim-side step at all.
And the access gap the ruling opened with: governance_read gains
v2-harness-design, v2-stratum-tags, mauss-fixture-spans, mauss-fixture-citations
— PENDING-86's fourth instance, same shape and same remedy as chamber-spec. The
jurist can now verify Part I rather than take it as testimony. Eight controls
including that the served text actually carries §6.2's pre-registration clause,
§5's F4 row and the L926 citation strings. Self-test 54 checks, 0 failures.
David F Glidden
4c3758e559