The steward called him and the net rejected a recited sample. Correct behaviour, and the
honest-degradation report did its job — he was told rather than left with silence.
The prompts asked him not to reuse the samples. They did not say the ask has teeth. A
model reading 'do not reuse them' among a dozen other constraints weighs it as one more
preference; a model told 'four shared words and the whole line is discarded and you are
silent' is being given the actual cost. Same constraint, stated as the constraint it is.
⚠ WHAT I DID NOT DO: count how many rejections are recital-type. REVIEWED-128 condition 3
binds 'not read for content before 2026-09-08', and the jurist was specific that the 09-08
read is for 'the rate and the pattern of violations'. Counting the pattern now IS that
read, taken early, and the named hazard is that it shapes the net toward lines the reader
happens to like. One stderr line reaching the steward by design is not the log.
⚠ AND WHAT I AM NOT DECIDING: whether the sample lines should be withheld from the prompt
entirely. That would remove the recital source at the root, and it is NOT mine — it
changes what he sounds like, and the voice has been ruled out of the executor's hands
three times today. Surfaced to the steward, not acted on.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J6hZXNYSxEfZseBGTni4sf
