Pre-transfer publication readiness: the arity ruled, the front page conformed, v5.14.0 proposed

README.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 
 A framework for deciding **where determinations are supplied, how they are assured, and who answers for them** — at the level of individual decisions rather than whole jobs.
 
-It applies to any arrangement that determines choices against ground: programs, models, humans, organisations, markets, immune systems, and compositions of them.
+It is written to apply across arrangements that determine choices against ground — programs, models, humans, organisations, markets, immune systems, and compositions of them.
 
 \---
 
@@ -102,25 +102,27 @@ See [`core/01-the-principle.md`](core/01-the-principle.md) and [`core/02-complet
 
 \---
 
-## The central result: check the work or check the worker
+## The central claim: check the work or check the worker
 
-The framework's most important result concerns the **acceptance predicate**: the criterion by which an outcome would be judged acceptable.
+The framework's central claim concerns the **acceptance predicate**: the criterion by which an outcome would be judged acceptable.
 
 The irreducible judgment floor is not a property of how "difficult" a task is.
 
 It is a property of whether adequacy can be checked.
 
 > **The floor is non-zero exactly when, and because, you cannot check the work.**
 
-Where the acceptance predicate **closes for the arrangement** — relevant ground is observable and adequacy can be evaluated within the declared resource, latency, confidence, and assurance bounds — no particular determiner is required for trust. Different paths may produce acceptable outputs because the result itself can be checked.
+*(Claim `DDD-floor-02`, **projected** — argued, with a declared falsifier that has not been met.)*
+
+Where the acceptance predicate **closes for the arrangement** — relevant ground is observable and adequacy can be evaluated within the declared resource, latency, and confidence bounds — no particular determiner is required for trust. Different paths may produce acceptable outputs because the result itself can be checked.
 
 Where the predicate does **not** close, that route to assurance disappears.
 
 Verification moves from the output toward the supplier:
 
 > **You cannot check the work, so you check the worker.**
 
-This explains why organisations use licences, qualifications, grades, track records, certification, institutional standing, and selection.
+This is the framework's reading of why organisations use licences, qualifications, grades, track records, certification, institutional standing, and selection — carried as a projected hypothesis (`DDD-hyp-05`), not a finding.
 
 They are not merely descriptions of capability.
 
@@ -317,7 +319,7 @@ An open predicate within capacity remains judgment.
 
 Overflow on an open predicate produces escape.
 
-This also yields a mechanical account of one class of hallucination: output decoupled from correct ground because that ground is absent, false, or present but unresolved.
+Read as exposition, this suggests a mechanical reading of one class of hallucination: output decoupled from correct ground because that ground is absent, false, or present but unresolved. No claim carries that reading; the mechanism claim itself (`DDD-floor-01`) is `reported` on toy actors only.
 
 See [`core/11-the-floor-mechanism.md`](core/11-the-floor-mechanism.md).
 
@@ -351,11 +353,11 @@ See [`core/07-determination-and-intelligence.md`](core/07-determination-and-inte
 
 \---
 
-## A worked instance outside software
+## A suggestive parallel outside software
 
-The actor-general vocabulary is tested against the vertebrate immune system.
+The actor-general vocabulary is read against the vertebrate immune system.
 
-The mapping is not intended as metaphor:
+The reading is a **suggestive parallel with known disanalogies** — that demotion is on record, and no claim carries the instance at any status. The mapping offered:
 
 |Store|Immune-system instance|
 |-|-|
@@ -364,11 +366,11 @@ The mapping is not intended as metaphor:
 |**Judgment**|adaptive per-encounter response|
 |**Escaped**|a pathogen no response catches|
 
-The case also supplies an ensemble actor: diversity across a population carries coverage no single member can.
+The case also suggests an ensemble actor: diversity across a population carries coverage no single member can.
 
 > **Redundancy buys reliability. Diversity buys coverage.**
 
-The immune system matters because no engineer specified it. If the framework's categories only worked for deliberately engineered systems, the actor-general claim would fail here.
+The parallel matters because no engineer specified the immune system: a vocabulary that could only describe deliberately engineered systems would not be actor-general. The instance is offered as a reading to be broken, not a test that was passed.
 
 See [`core/12-the-licensing-instance.md`](core/12-the-licensing-instance.md).
 

core/05-accountability.md

@@ -52,17 +52,29 @@ spectrum runs the other way.
 
 > **Accountability completeness is a property of an arrangement, not a capacity of an actor. An
 > execution is accountability-complete when it is linked to a persistent responsible principal, an
-> attributable record, a defined stake, and an enforceable consequence path.**
+> attributable record, a defined stake, an enforceable consequence path, and an authority with
+> jurisdiction to enforce it.**
 >
 > It is independent of pinning resolution, in the sense that it is not recoverable from it — and it
 > is the scarcer of the two properties.
 
+That is the completeness condition — five elements: attribution, persistent principal, authority
+linkage, stake, sanction path *(claim `DDD-frame-08`, **projected**)*. It is not the definition.
+The definition is the settled term embedded below, and the two are different objects.
+
 <!-- ddd:embed id=term:accountability -->
 > **Accountability** is a property of the arrangement, not of the executor: attribution of
 > the determination, a persistent answerable party, and a borne consequence. An arrangement
 > missing any of the three has not allocated the decision's consequence.
 <!-- /ddd:embed -->
 
+The definition and the completeness condition differ, and the difference has a test: an arrangement
+can instantiate the relation and still be incomplete. Attribution exists, a persistent principal
+exists, a consequence is borne — and no authority has jurisdiction to enforce it. Everyone knows who
+is responsible; nobody can sanction them. The completeness condition refines the definition's borne
+consequence into stake plus sanction path and adds authority linkage; the refinement and the
+addition are carried at the claim's grade (**projected**), not the term's (**settled**).
+
 A model does not simply *lack* sanctionability. Persistence depends on identity rules and continuity
 of obligation; stake depends on property, role, bond, reputation, or delegated interest;
 sanctionability depends on an authority with enforceable jurisdiction — all properties of a

core/claims/DDD-frame-08.yaml

@@ -2,13 +2,48 @@ format: 1
 id: DDD-frame-08
 kind: normative
 statement: |
-  Accountability is a relation (attribution, persistent principal, authority linkage, stake, sanction path), not an intrinsic capacity; an arrangement naming an executor but no principal is incomplete.
+  Accountability is a relation, not an intrinsic capacity of an executor. Completeness is a design-time condition on an arrangement, distinct from the relation's definition: a complete arrangement links attribution, a persistent principal, authority linkage, stake, and a sanction path. An arrangement can instantiate the relation and still be incomplete; an arrangement naming an executor but no principal is incomplete.
 status: projected
 region: consequential deployments
 test: >-
   stakeholder and case studies — completeness of the relation predicting trust and remediation
   outcomes better than executor identity
 owner: paper-4
-changed: v4.5
+changed: v5.14 (2026-09-03, pre-transfer session, GATE 1 ruling C — statement re-scoped as the completeness condition; status, region, test unchanged; version per the session's close proposal)
 notes: |
-  Conceptual core verified against canon: core/05 (v4.5, P1) states "Accountability completeness is a property of an arrangement, not a capacity of an actor... linked to a persistent responsible principal, an attributable record, a defined stake, and an enforceable consequence path", and core/01/core/05 §1 "a judgment allocation naming no accountable party is... Escaped with an executor attached". Kept projected: the normative prediction (relation-completeness predicting trust/remediation) is unexercised, needing the stated case studies.
+  Re-scoped, 2026-09-03 (pre-transfer session, GATE 1 ruling C, Emil). The prior statement read:
+  "Accountability is a relation (attribution, persistent principal, authority linkage, stake,
+  sanction path), not an intrinsic capacity; an arrangement naming an executor but no principal is
+  incomplete." Read against term:accountability (settled, three elements), that left two counts of
+  the relation's elements with nothing saying which governs. The ruling: the term defines what
+  accountability is — attribution of the determination, a persistent answerable party, a borne
+  consequence; this claim asserts what a complete instance requires at design time — the borne
+  consequence refined into stake plus the sanction path, and authority linkage added as a
+  completeness condition. The two objects differ, and there is a test: an arrangement can
+  instantiate the relation and still be incomplete — attribution exists, a persistent principal
+  exists, a consequence is borne, and no authority has jurisdiction to enforce it; everyone knows
+  who is responsible, nobody can sanction them. The term deliberately does not carry authority
+  linkage: a settled definition carries only what the corpus argues at settled grade, and authority
+  linkage's carriage is this projected claim and DDD-hyp-04's unrun prediction. core/05 §2 states
+  the distinction beside the term's embed.
+
+  Conceptual core verified against canon, citation corrected in the same ruling: the prior notes
+  cited core/05 §2's completeness sentence alone, which carried four elements (persistent
+  responsible principal, attributable record, defined stake, enforceable consequence path) — a
+  four-element source cited as verification for five. The verification is the pair: that sentence
+  (now carrying all five, attributed to this claim), plus core/05 §2's sanctionability line —
+  "sanctionability depends on an authority with enforceable jurisdiction — all properties of a
+  relationship among executor, principal, record, and sanctioning authority" — which is where the
+  prose argues the fifth element. Also core/01/core/05 §1: "a judgment allocation naming no
+  accountable party is... Escaped with an executor attached".
+
+  Lineage (Paper A's related-work survey, 2026-08-30): four of the five elements are already
+  Bovens's — the actor–forum relation, with the actor obliged to inform, the forum able to
+  interrogate, and the forum able to pass judgement and impose sanctions (European Law Journal
+  13(4), 2007). The delta is authority linkage, which Bovens does not carry as a distinct element,
+  and a change of tense: Bovens's relation is assessed retrospectively over conduct, this claim's
+  completeness is constituted at design time. Half the delta is a tense change and is claimed as no
+  more than that.
+
+  Kept projected: the normative prediction (relation-completeness predicting trust/remediation) is
+  unexercised, needing the stated case studies.

core/claims/DDD-measure-11.yaml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ statement: >
   function and the deployment distribution and says nothing about the cost of computing a
   correct answer. Two tasks with identical verdict entropy can differ unboundedly in
   generation cost, so the measure must not be read as pricing generation.
-status: reported
+status: projected
 region: closing predicates only (where H(verdict) exists)
 credits: >
   Cook-Levin (1971), via DDD-frame-06: satisfiability is linear to check yet NP-hard to
@@ -21,9 +21,15 @@ falsifier: >
   A task family in which verdict entropy bounds generation cost, so that the measure does
   price the search.
 owner: paper-1
-changed: v4.5
+changed: v5.14 (2026-09-07, pre-transfer session, GATE 4 ruling — demoted reported -> projected; statement, region, evidence and falsifier unchanged; version per the session's close proposal)
 notes: >
   Extracted in the core/09 conversion; added to canon at v4.5 (generation-cost
   correction). The measure-framed companion of DDD-frame-06 (the closure/generation-cost
   separation, established) — the two variables this release separates must not be re-fused
   through the measure.
+
+  Demoted reported -> projected, 2026-09-07 (pre-transfer session, GATE 4 ruling, Emil):
+  the only evidence entry is a derivation, and spec/claim-format.md §5 defines reported as
+  carrying at least one evidence entry whose asset reproduces. The derivation stays
+  recorded; the status now matches what the evidence carries — and matches how the primer's
+  §6 already read this claim. Restatus to reported when a reproducing asset exercises it.

core/claims/DDD-measure-13.yaml

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ statement: >
   decomposition harvests more of the verdict, runtime demand falls toward the residual the
   encoding has not captured, never below what the open part of the predicate leaves
   undetermined.
-status: reported
+status: projected
 region: closing predicates only, conditional on DDD-measure-01
 credits: The theorem is Shannon's (chain rule, 1948); only the identification is ours.
 evidence:
@@ -15,8 +15,14 @@ evidence:
   note: §5, third bullet — the asymptote of the maturation/funnel projection (core/08) in measure terms
 falsifier: none — arithmetic given the chain rule; fires with DDD-measure-01
 owner: paper-1
-changed: v4.5
+changed: v5.14 (2026-09-07, pre-transfer session, GATE 4 ruling — demoted reported -> projected; statement, region, evidence and falsifier unchanged; version per the session's close proposal)
 notes: >
   Extracted in the core/09 conversion (§5). Connects the measure to the maturation/funnel
   projection in core/08-projections.md; the seed landed neither the asymptote formula nor
   that link.
+
+  Demoted reported -> projected, 2026-09-07 (pre-transfer session, GATE 4 ruling, Emil):
+  the only evidence entry is a derivation, and spec/claim-format.md §5 defines reported as
+  carrying at least one evidence entry whose asset reproduces. The derivation stays
+  recorded; the status now matches what the evidence carries — and matches how the primer's
+  §6 already read this claim. Restatus to reported when a reproducing asset exercises it.

releases/v5.14.0.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+format: 1
+version: v5.14.0
+# No `commit`: cut wherever this file lands on the default branch, the normal case
+# (spec/release-format.md §2 rule 3).
+date: 2026-09-07
+basis:
+  # The claim re-scoped as the completeness condition (GATE 1 ruling C): the settled term
+  # defines the relation; the claim asserts what a complete instance requires at design time.
+  - DDD-frame-08
+  # Examined under the same ruling and deliberately untouched: its prediction already
+  # quantifies over completeness of the five-element arrangement.
+  - DDD-hyp-04
+  # The two demotions: derivation-only evidence under a status §5 defines as requiring a
+  # reproducing asset (GATE 4 ruling).
+  - DDD-measure-11
+  - DDD-measure-13
+title: 'Publication readiness — the arity ruled, the front page carries no more than a status does'
+summary: |
+  **The last canon work before the repositories become public**, chosen by one test: does this get
+  more expensive, or become unfixable, once someone outside can read it or fork it? Interactive
+  throughout; every change below is a gate ruling (pre-transfer session, Emil; the session record
+  is the projection repository's `meta/sessions/2026-09-02-pre-transfer/`).
+
+  This is a minor and not a patch: a projected claim's statement moves by supersession and two
+  statuses move. It is not a major because every format-1 claim remains valid unchanged, no id
+  moves, and no settled node moves.
+
+  ### The accountability arity, ruled (disposition C)
+
+  `DDD-frame-08` (projected) counted five elements where `term:accountability` (settled) counts
+  three, and nothing said which governs. Ruled: **they are different objects, and the difference
+  has a test.** The term defines what accountability is — attribution, a persistent answerable
+  party, a borne consequence. The claim asserts what a *complete* instance requires at design
+  time — the borne consequence refined into stake plus sanction path, and authority linkage added
+  as a completeness condition. An arrangement can instantiate the relation and still be
+  incomplete: everyone knows who is responsible; nobody can sanction them. The claim's statement
+  now says so; the term is untouched; `core/05` §2 states the distinction beside the embed, with
+  its completeness sentence carrying all five elements at the claim's grade, attributed. The
+  lineage lands in the claim's notes at its true size: four of the five elements are Bovens's;
+  the delta is authority linkage plus the change from retrospective assessment to design-time
+  constitution — half of it a tense change, claimed as no more.
+
+  ### Two statuses stop overstating their evidence
+
+  `DDD-measure-11` and `DDD-measure-13` demote `reported` → `projected`: their only evidence is a
+  derivation, and `spec/claim-format.md` §5 defines `reported` as carrying at least one evidence
+  entry whose asset reproduces. The derivations stay recorded; the downstream primer already read
+  both conservatively as projected, and canon now agrees with its own projection. Neither is
+  pinned downstream; nothing fires on their account.
+
+  ### The front page carries no more than a status does
+
+  Repaired in place, converging on the register the README already used where it was right: the
+  central claim is named a claim with `DDD-floor-02`'s status beside it; the licences sentence
+  carries `DDD-hyp-05` as a projected hypothesis, not a finding; the hallucination passage is
+  marked exposition; the immune-system section takes the recorded v3-era demotion — a suggestive
+  parallel with known disanalogies, offered as a reading to be broken, not a test that was
+  passed; the applicability sentence states intent rather than asserting universality; and the
+  closure sentence returns to the settled term's three bounds — the fourth was the front page's
+  own addition, which three sources contradicted.
+
+  ### What fires, stated before it happens
+
+  When the downstream pin next advances past this release, **exactly one W6 fires**:
+  `DDD-frame-08`, `sha256:cf73b307…` → `sha256:ef5d5faf…` (statement re-scoped, status held).
+  The demotions fire nothing — `DDD-measure-11` and `DDD-measure-13` are not pinned, and status
+  is instrumented by W5 only for pinned ids. Zero W5, zero W7 change. The downstream pin advance
+  *to* v5.13.0 was executed and verified in the same session (downstream `DDD-dec-35`): the
+  ground migration's own two-W6 prediction held in every limb, by id and by hash, across a tag
+  and a merge.

spec/claim-format.md

@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
 # Claim format specification
 
 **Format version: 1.** This file is the versioned schema artifact for claim nodes — shape and
-validation rules only. It contains no process (see `meta/conversion-protocol.md`, versioned with
+validation rules only. It contains no process (see the projection repository's
+`meta/conversion-protocol.md`, versioned with
 the way of working) and no content (see `core/claims/`, versioned per claim via `changed`). The
 three change independently: