David F GliddenandClaude Opus 5
2f5dbc98fd
Ruling filed verbatim. Drafting authorized by the steward's placement of REVIEWED-86; application is not, and ~/CLAUDE.md is untouched. The amendment adds a second paragraph to Constraint 6 and replaces nothing -- both original clauses survive verbatim, the caution is refined rather than relaxed, and the L2 deferral stands. Both jurist conditions welded into the text that would actually land, not left in surrounding commentary, since a future reader cites the doctrine block and not the discussion of it. Q2: biases that fail to coincide do not cancel, and the doctrine may never be cited as assurance something WAS caught. Q3: the jurist and executor do not differ in formation, their separation is the weaker kind, and neither the doctrine nor its evidence establishes that pair as a check in the strong sense -- the doctrine naming the configuration that produced it as the one it does not vouch for. Steward ruled the open question on `Status: provisional` sitting inside a section headed "cannot be overridden": retain it. Constraint 6 already carries a temporal qualifier, so the section is not free of them. Paste block prepared separately, indented to continue the numbered list. The edit is the steward's: Constraint 1 names this file and sits under "cannot be overridden by any session instruction", and the ruling states the steward's own act is what nothing substitutes for. PENDING-89 dockets the Q3 correlation review the jurist declined to leave hypothetical, with the hazard named -- this is the executor measuring whether the executor is checked, so criteria must be pre-registered and it may be steward-only work. Q4 folded into the existing REVIEWED-85 check-in agenda rather than given its own cadence, per the ruling's reasoning that a new standing review produces another unread register. PENDING-86 amended with its third instance: the jurist could not reach contamination-problem.md while gating an argument that turns on it. Convergence question closed. The jurist inferred a common source; the steward confirmed it -- the exchange was shared as context only, and Document A predates it, so the jurist's language cannot have shaped the proposal. Neither contamination nor corroboration. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WuMjg3ipEVa3n8CoSzoyvc
4.1 KiB
Skill-harvest FIX-lane index
Append-only. One line per skill change applied under the /wrap-up §1.6 FIX lane. This
is the record the steward–jurist check-in reads; a FIX applied without a line here is a
governance failure, not a shortcut.
Authority: PENDING-88 → jurist design gate PASSED with conditions → REVIEWED-85 (steward-placed 2026-08-02). The lane is PROVISIONAL until that check-in — after the first batch or one month, whichever comes first.
A change belongs in the lane only if it clears the two-clause test (does this change what the executor may do without asking, or what a governed artifact asserts? — either clause yes → PROPOSAL) and the hard floor. When in doubt, propose.
| # | Skill | What changed | Date | Batch |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | symmetria §4 (ledger template) |
Added a standing ## What held section — instruments that fired prospectively, lessons that transferred to a failure class they were not built for. Entry format: banked-lesson → what it caught → what it would have cost. Without it the ledger can only record debits; six hand-added ## Progress headings were the practice compensating for the schema gap. |
2026-08-02 | 1 |
| 2 | /wrap-up §5 (KG append) |
Added a prevention predicate — {subject: <banked lesson>, predicate: "prevention", object: <the failure it stopped, and where>}. Distinct from drift-pattern-good-direction: that records a good move, this records transfer, which the schema could not previously capture. |
2026-08-02 | 1 |
| 3 | /wake-up §2.b.2 |
Surface one prevention alongside the drift-patterns, one line each way. The wake previously grepped only drift-pattern, so every session opened by re-reading what went wrong and never what compounded. |
2026-08-02 | 1 |
| 4 | /wrap-up §1 (literal question) |
Retired the self-report framing of the standing question. contamination-problem.md names direct self-report the most contaminated form of inquiry; the guidance now prefers the checkable form the same evidence answers — does a lesson banked from one failure prevent a different failure later? |
2026-08-02 | 1 |
Check-in agenda — what the steward–jurist review must cover
Batch 1 is complete, so the check-in is due. Two items, the second added by a later ruling:
-
The lane itself — do the four batch-1 changes hold up as class (i)? Was the two-clause test applied honestly, or rationalised around? Should the lane move from provisional to settled, be narrowed, or be withdrawn?
-
The retrieval obligation (REVIEWED-86 Q4). The jurist directed this be folded into this check-in rather than given a standalone cadence, on the explicit grounds that a new standing review is the shape of thing that produces another unread register. The obligation: the record is not just written, it is read. Its evidence is the eighteen-month gap between the steward recording "May smooth over tensions" (2025-01-20, in the right words, in a durable indexed file) and it reaching the doctrine that needed it. Recording was not the failure; retrieval was. The check-in should therefore ask what banked record bears on what we are about to decide, and who reads it — not merely confirm that things were written down.
Batch 1 — classification note
All four were raised by the steward on 2026-07-29 and dispositioned as the first FIX-lane
batch by REVIEWED-85 itself, so their classification was ruled rather than self-assessed.
Each is class (i) — a change to what a skill records, not to what it permits or
requires. None touches an authorization boundary, gate criteria, Constraint 1, or the
escalate list. None removes, defers, or narrows the visibility of an open item; #3 and the
prevention predicate widen what reaches the steward.
Not in this index, deliberately: the §1.6 edit that created the lane. That change altered
what the executor may do without asking, so it was [PROPOSAL] by its own test — filed as
PENDING-88, design-gated by the jurist, authorized by the steward as REVIEWED-85. A lane
cannot authorize its own construction.