CONDITION 1, and it is the one that had to stop being an intention: log_rejection()
refuses an empty `why`, and acceptable() returns an empty `why` EXACTLY when the line
passed. So there is no call site from which an accepted line could be written — logging
one would require inventing a violation it does not have. The same guarantee render()
takes from its signature, applied to the clause the jurist named as the condition under
which this log is not a §9 breach. Both polarities asserted.
CONDITION 2: deletion tracked as its own DEFERRED-DECISION on 2026-09-08, so retaining
it requires an act rather than an omission. A corpus of suppressed speech would let
someone reconstruct a register — the hazard PENDING-153's freeze exists to prevent.
CONDITION 3: not read for content before then. ⚠ Not clean already, and the item says so:
the executor displayed one rejected line to the steward earlier today, before the
condition existed. Disclosed rather than left to be discovered.
⚠ THE §9 [FIX] WAS OVER-APPLIED AND THE EXECUTOR APPLIED IT AS GIVEN. The clause is a
disjunction with one live branch; only the jurist half is unreachable. The first edit
struck the whole thing and rewrote the clause. A [FIX] tag licenses implementing
directly; it does not license implementing UNREAD, and the disjunction was visible in a
three-word span. Corrected, both versions left visible.
PENDING-159 AMENDMENT 2 files the jurist's answer to the item's own caveat and the
narrowing it produces: the marker may be NOTED, NEVER COUNTED — an aggregate becomes a
measurement, and a measurement invites accuracy. And PENDING-89 now carries the sentence
saying what it can and cannot expect: individual instances, unaggregated, in unknown
proportion, non-neutral — therefore NO correlation statistic. If its falsifier needs a
rate, it needs another instrument or an honest admission that it has none.
125 controls across five scripts.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01J6hZXNYSxEfZseBGTni4sf
