Jurist-ruled 2026-08-17 to correct independently of the mechanism, since it is a
false claim whichever remedy wins.
The docstring described REVIEWED-78/-81/-82 as "like-numbered rulings … concerning
other matters" that had "falsely hidden" three items. Both halves are false. They
are the AUTHORIZED rulings on PENDING-78/-81/-82 — same date, titles verbatim
identical, and REVIEWED-81 names "PENDING-81" twice in its own body. They are
like-numbered on purpose: REVIEWED-78's Notes say it was filed separately "for a
mechanical reason: the closure rule in wake-digest.py matches a PENDING item to
REVIEWED-<same number>."
So the number→subject fix broke the three entries deliberately authored to satisfy
the rule it replaced, then recorded their compliance as coincidence. Surfacing them
was a regression; they have read open since 2026-07-28. The change proof could not
see it because it measured a count (18→19) while the claim was each item's
disposition — and the counts stay equal either way: removing 3 false-opens and
restoring 3 false-closeds both leave 29.
Superseded wording retained in the note rather than overwritten.
Also filed as PENDING-142 ADDENDUM 3: the jurist ruling with its condition that
(b)'s closing-verb enumeration must default to NOT CLOSED on unrecognized verbs;
and the verified finding that governance-drift-check.py's subject is exactly one
file (~/CLAUDE.md), so the scripts implementing governance checks make substrate
claims nothing checks — one confirmed occupant, population unmeasured.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013Y6t6qx7cpaCu5xGdD36u4
