Authored per /jurist-package: self-contained for a jurist with no repository access,
every ratified clause quoted verbatim from the substrate rather than described.
The argument moved during authoring, and got stronger. PENDING-88 framed this as §1.6
failing to use the constitution's taxonomy. Reading §1.6 whole shows something narrower
and textual: §1.6 already draws the FIX-vs-PROPOSAL split for repo CLAUDE.md files and
names it as that split — "the same FIX-vs-PROPOSAL split, one level up" — then applies a
blanket prohibition to skills two paragraphs later. The asymmetry is internal to §1.6,
not a gap between §1.6 and the constitution.
Also recorded: a rule adopted to preserve steward awareness produced, by accumulation, the
loss of it — every proposal routed to one file, the file passed the read cap, and the
/wake-up step whose purpose is to surface them stopped completing. That is mechanical and
measured, not a governance judgment being second-guessed.
Counts restated with a stated inclusion rule, correcting the item's own figures, and
option (d) disclosed as already authorized (2026-07-19 Stroke 4) and executed today, so
the ruling is made against current state.
Containment-checked with positive and negative controls before filing. The check caught
four defects in my own draft: three lines of proposed text rendered as ratified
blockquotes — the same convention ambiguity it caught in the 07-29 package, recurring —
and an elided §1.6 quote presented as contiguous. Both fixed; proposed text is now fenced
and the elision is marked.
Nothing applied. No skill changed, no governed artifact edited.
Refs PENDING-88.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WuMjg3ipEVa3n8CoSzoyvc
