P13-S26 amendment 2: amendment 1's lifecycle statements

Ratifying amendment 1 discharged its prescriptions and left its prose
describing the state it was written in. Section 6 went on calling itself a
draft, its replacement "proposed", its ratification act pending, and its review
questions open -- while its own status line read RATIFIED and the hold had been
lifted at f9170b0. This does not rewrite that commit; it corrects what
ratification could not correct by itself.

Pin 11 did not cover any of it. Its landing edit reached section 6's revision
records only, so the preamble, the section and subsection lead-ins, and the
review disposition were owned by nothing -- the same shape as the defect pin 11
exists to prevent, one layer in: a document describing a state it is not in,
this time about its own amendment rather than about the rung. Ratification is
not self-applying. A frozen prescription discharges; the prose around it does
not, unless something owns it.

Applied: the preamble becomes a dated record ending the hold at f9170b0, past
tense throughout; 6.3 and 6.7 are marked ratified, with 6.7's two
ratification-act edits marked discharged and its closing paragraph put in past
tense where it had asserted the amendment was not yet ratified; 6.8 becomes a
closed review disposition, each question answered and attributed to the round
that answered it.

Pin 11's third landing edit and gate 13 are widened from "revision records" to
section 6's revision records, preamble and lifecycle records. Widened rather
than re-enumerated: listing the sentences that had gone stale would leave the
next one unowned in exactly the way this amendment repairs. Gate 13 still reads
the status line specifically and never searches the section for DRAFT, which
the revision records legitimately contain.

No implementation target is touched. core_spec.tex, invariants.rs, the ledger
and the guard file remain untouched at 01c621d; baseline unchanged at 1583
passing across 42 suites. Execution resumes at pin 3 with amendment 1's shape
unchanged.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ps1szk2mSfgp4Cz21eVH9x

spec/CONTRACT_P13S26_INVARIANT10_SURFACE.md

@@ -1647,16 +1647,18 @@ Ratified 2026-08-11 on the authority of the repository owner, review round 5
 returning zero findings. The amended pins are executed, not edited; a further
 defect is its own amendment with its own review round.
 
-**DISPATCHED 2026-08-11; HELD at pin 3 before the first execution edit.** The
+**DATED RECORD — the hold this amendment describes ENDED at `f9170b0`.** What
-contract was dispatched for implementation, execution began, and it stopped on
+follows is an account of 2026-08-11, not a statement of current state.
-reaching pin 3 — so "NOT YET DISPATCHED" is no longer accurate, and 6.7
-prescribes its replacement.
 
-**No pin 3 or pin 6 implementation target has been modified.** `core_spec.tex`,
+On that date the contract was dispatched for implementation, execution began,
-`invariants.rs`, the ledger and the guard file are untouched at `01c621d`. The
+and it stopped on reaching pin 3; the top status paragraph still read NOT YET
-only change is this amendment draft to the future pin-11 target, and **it is not
+DISPATCHED, and 6.7 prescribed its replacement. Throughout the hold no pin 3 or
-an execution edit** — pin 11's edits belong to landing, and this one belongs to
+pin 6 implementation target was modified — `core_spec.tex`, `invariants.rs`, the
-the amendment.
+ledger and the guard file were untouched at `01c621d`, and the only change was
+this amendment's own draft.
+
+**Both of 6.7's ratification-act edits were applied at `f9170b0` and the hold was
+lifted.** Execution resumes at pin 3.
 
 ### REVISION E — review round 5. One exactness correction. ACCEPTED.
 
@@ -1789,7 +1791,7 @@ Pin 3 permits group headings "rendered as prose lead-ins outside the nested
 `itemize`". A scope-broadening opening is not a group heading, so executing it
 that way would be editing a frozen pin by interpretation.
 
-### 6.3 Proposed replacement for pin 3's item-10 shape
+### 6.3 Replacement for pin 3's item-10 shape — RATIFIED at `f9170b0`
 
 Item 10 becomes, in this order:
 
@@ -1901,7 +1903,7 @@ That is the discrimination M19 is for: the two anchor kinds are driven to
 opposite verdicts by one mutation. **M21 remains the duplicate-count
 signature**, and the two no longer overlap.
 
-### 6.7 Consequential change to pin 11, touch row 7 and gate 13
+### 6.7 Consequential change to pin 11, touch row 7 and gate 13 — RATIFIED at `f9170b0`; the ratification-act edits are DISCHARGED
 
 Pin 11 and gate 13 speak only of "review-round blocks above §0", so **this
 amendment and its review record could land still reading DRAFT and HELD** —
@@ -1914,10 +1916,11 @@ document than pin 11 looks.
 different acts.** With one literal, §6 sits at `DRAFT` through the whole of
 execution.
 
-**Two edits belong to this amendment's own ratification act — not to pin 11**,
+**Two edits belonged to this amendment's own ratification act — not to pin 11**,
-because the contract is *already dispatched* and its top status is *already*
+because the contract was *already dispatched* and its top status *already*
-untrue; waiting for landing would leave the document lying about its lifecycle
+untrue; waiting for landing would have left the document lying about its
-for the entire execution:
+lifecycle for the entire execution. **Both were applied at `f9170b0` and are
+DISCHARGED:**
 
 - **§6's status line** becomes exactly:
   `STATUS: RATIFIED. Pins 3, 6 and 11 amended. Execution resumes.`
@@ -1963,46 +1966,108 @@ for the entire execution:
   The ratification date, the owner's authority and the no-count rule all
   survive, which is the point of replacing a clause rather than the paragraph.
 
-**Pin 11 continues to own only the later landed forms**, and gains one:
+**Pin 11 continues to own only the later landed forms**, and gains one — this
+part remains a change to pin 11, executed at landing, not at ratification:
 
 - **On landing**, §6's status line becomes exactly
   `STATUS: LANDED by this commit.` — the same no-hash rule as pin 11's own
   STATUS, for the same reason.
 
-**Proposed:**
+**Amended into pin 11, touch row 7 and gate 13:**
 
 - **Pin 11** gains a third landing edit: **§6's status line** takes its landed
-  literal, and **§6's revision records are marked a dated historical record**,
+  literal, and **§6's revision records, preamble and lifecycle records are
-  on the same rule as the review-round blocks.
+  marked a dated historical record**, on the same rule as the review-round
+  blocks. *Widened by amendment 2 from "revision records" alone, which left the
+  preamble and the section's own lifecycle statements unowned — the defect
+  amendment 2 exists to close.*
 - **Touch row 7** names that third edit alongside the other two.
 - **Gate 13** asserts **the status line specifically** — that §6's status line
-  reads exactly `STATUS: LANDED by this commit.`, and that §6's revision records
+  reads exactly `STATUS: LANDED by this commit.`, and that §6's revision
-  are marked historical. **It must not search §6 for the word `DRAFT`**: the
+  records, **its preamble and its lifecycle records** are marked historical. **It must not search §6 for the word `DRAFT`**: the
   revision records explain what the drafts said and legitimately contain it, so
   a section-wide search would be unsatisfiable by a correct execution.
 
 **Why the top status is reconciled at ratification rather than at landing.**
-It reads **NOT YET DISPATCHED** while §6 records **DISPATCHED; HELD** — the
+It read **NOT YET DISPATCHED** while §6 recorded **DISPATCHED; HELD** — the
 document contradicting itself about its own lifecycle, the class this rung has
-caught repeatedly. Deferring the fix to pin 11 would keep that contradiction
+caught repeatedly. Deferring the fix to pin 11 would have kept that
-live for the whole of execution, which is precisely the interval in which a
+contradiction live for the whole of execution, which is precisely the interval
-reader most needs the status to be true. It is therefore an **amendment-
+in which a reader most needs the status to be true. It was therefore an
-ratification** edit, above, and is **not edited here**: the STATUS block is
+**amendment-ratification** edit, and it was **applied at `f9170b0`**.
-ratified text and this amendment is not yet ratified.
 
-### 6.8 What the next review must decide
+### 6.8 Review disposition — CLOSED at `f9170b0`
 
-1. Whether 6.3's *explicit-permission* subordination is the right instrument,
+Every question this section put to review was answered before ratification.
-   now that the cross-cutting form stands **unproved** and revision A's bare
+None is open.
-   form **ambiguous** — and whether it reads as normative English rather than as
+
-   a hedge.
+1. **The explicit-permission subordination is the right instrument.** Review
-2. ~~Whether M19's two-part construction holds against a backward-searching
+   round 5 accepted it, the cross-cutting form standing **unproved** and
-   slice.~~ **Settled by review round 4:** pin 6 already requires the nested
+   revision A's bare form **ambiguous**. Closed.
-   list to follow the anchor, so a backward search would violate the pin. Not an
+2. **M19's two-part construction holds.** Review round 4: pin 6 already requires
-   open question.
+   the nested list to follow the anchor, so a backward-searching slice would
-3. Whether anything else in §6 asserts a property of the re-anchoring rules that
+   violate the pin rather than expose an unresolved choice. Closed.
-   was read off their coverage rather than their text — 6.4 was one such, and
+3. **No further coverage-for-text substitution remains in §6.** Review rounds 3
-   the class has now recurred twice.
+   and 4 found the class twice more — in 6.4's claim, then in its own rejection
-4. Whether the two ratification-act edits in 6.7 are correctly scoped — they
+   reasoning — and round 5 returned zero findings against the whole section.
-   are the only edits this amendment prescribes for a moment other than landing,
+   Closed.
-   and they touch the ratified STATUS block.
+4. **The two ratification-act edits were correctly scoped**, and are
+   **discharged** at `f9170b0`: §6's status literal, and the clause-level
+   replacement in the top status paragraph. Closed.
+
+---
+
+## §7. AMENDMENT 2 — AMENDMENT 1'S LIFECYCLE STATEMENTS
+
+**STATUS: RATIFIED 2026-08-11 on the owner's instruction. Applied by the same
+commit that records it.** Amendment 1 stands as ratified at `f9170b0`; **this
+amendment does not rewrite that commit**, and changes no pin 3, pin 4, pin 5,
+pin 6, pin 7 or pin 10 content.
+
+### 7.1 The defect
+
+Ratifying amendment 1 discharged its *prescriptions* and left its *prose*
+describing the state it was written in. §6 went on calling itself a draft, its
+replacement "proposed", its ratification act pending, and its review questions
+open — while §6's own status line read RATIFIED and the hold had been lifted.
+
+**Pin 11 did not cover this.** Its landing edit reached §6's *revision records*
+only, so the preamble, the section and subsection lead-ins, and the review
+disposition were owned by nothing. That is the same shape as the defect pin 11
+was written to prevent, one layer further in: **a document describing a state it
+is not in**, this time about its own amendment rather than about the rung.
+
+Recorded plainly because the pattern is the rung's whole subject: **ratification
+is not self-applying.** A frozen prescription discharges; the prose around it
+does not, unless something owns it.
+
+### 7.2 What this amendment applied
+
+1. **§6's preamble** becomes a **dated record** ending the hold at `f9170b0`,
+   in past tense throughout, stating that execution resumes.
+2. **§6.3** is marked **RATIFIED at `f9170b0`** rather than "Proposed
+   replacement".
+3. **§6.7** is marked **RATIFIED**, its two ratification-act edits
+   **DISCHARGED**, and its closing paragraph put in past tense — it previously
+   asserted that "this amendment is not yet ratified".
+4. **§6.8** becomes a **closed review disposition**, each question answered and
+   attributed to the round that answered it, replacing "What the next review
+   must decide".
+
+### 7.3 Pin 11 and gate 13 are widened
+
+**Pin 11's third landing edit** now covers **§6's revision records, preamble and
+lifecycle records**, not revision records alone. **Gate 13** asserts the same
+widened set, still reading §6's **status line** specifically and never searching
+the section for `DRAFT` — the revision records legitimately contain it.
+
+**Why widening rather than another enumeration:** listing the sites that were
+stale would leave the next lifecycle sentence unowned in exactly the way this
+amendment is repairing. The category — §6's lifecycle statements — is what pin
+11 must own.
+
+### 7.4 Scope
+
+No implementation target is touched. `core_spec.tex`, `invariants.rs`, the
+ledger and the guard file remain untouched at `01c621d`. Execution resumes at
+pin 3 with amendment 1's shape unchanged.