P13-S27: ratification withdrawn, held for independent round 3

Round 1 claimed ratification after a single round. Round 2 then found four
more blocking defects against the supposedly frozen text, two of them
introduced by round 1's own amendments. A ratification a later round
falsifies that quickly was not one, and leaving the claim standing would
make the status field mean nothing.

Status is now NOT RATIFIED, NOT DISPATCHABLE, pins NOT frozen, awaiting an
independent review round 3 against b842975. Freezing follows ratification;
it does not precede it and does not survive a withdrawal. No execution work
may begin -- not implementation, not staging, not partial work against "the
settled pins."

Also disambiguated the two senses of dispatchable that round 1 conflated.
Unblocked means the dependency chain cleared, true since bc06706.
Dispatchable means ratified and frozen and ready to execute, false. Reading
the first as the second is how this came to be ratified after one round.

Both prior rounds were run by the same agent that authored the amendments
under review. Round 3 is the first that will not be.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ps1szk2mSfgp4Cz21eVH9x

spec/CONTRACT_P13S27_REDUCTION_AUTHORITY.md

@@ -1,19 +1,32 @@
 # Contract — P13-S27: the reduction version gets an outside witness
 
-**Status:** **RATIFIED 2026-08-07** after **two adversarial review rounds**
-(nine findings then six, eight blocking in total), all now carried in the
-document; **AMENDED 2026-08-07** three times, all before dispatch: **pin 10** (the
-unsatisfiable escape clause), **round 1's nine**, and **round 2's six**. **Not yet
-implemented. The pins are frozen — they may be executed, not edited.** A defect
-found during execution is **reported, not patched in place**.
+**Status:** **NOT RATIFIED. NOT DISPATCHABLE. Awaiting independent review round 3
+against `b842975`.**
 
-> **Round 2 was run against the frozen contract and found four more blocking
-> defects, two of them created by round 1's own amendments.** Ratifying after a
-> single round was premature. A third round is warranted before dispatch by the
-> same reasoning that justified the second — the format-epoch rung took four, and
-> **the defect rate here has not yet fallen**: round 1 found nine, round 2 found
-> six. Treat "dispatchable" as a claim requiring evidence of convergence, not a
-> status reached by running out of findings.
+**Round 1's ratification is WITHDRAWN.** It was claimed on 2026-08-07 after a
+single round; round 2 then found four more blocking defects against the
+supposedly frozen text, two of them introduced by round 1's own amendments. A
+ratification that a subsequent round falsifies that quickly was not a
+ratification, and leaving the claim standing would make the status field mean
+nothing.
+
+**The pins are therefore NOT frozen.** They are open to round 3's findings.
+Freezing follows ratification; it does not precede it, and it does not survive a
+withdrawal. **No execution work may begin** — not implementation, not staging,
+not partial work against "the settled pins."
+
+**History:** amended three times on 2026-08-07, all before dispatch — **pin 10**
+(the unsatisfiable escape clause), **round 1's nine findings**, **round 2's six**.
+Fifteen findings so far, eight of them blocking. Both prior rounds were run by
+the same agent that authored the amendments under review; **round 3 is
+independent, and is the first that will not be.**
+
+**What round 3 should weigh, stated against interest:** the defect rate has not
+fallen — nine, then six — and the format-epoch rung took four rounds to
+converge. Two of round 2's four blocking findings were *caused* by round 1, which
+means the amendment process itself is a defect source and not only a defect sink.
+**Treat "dispatchable" as a claim requiring evidence of convergence, not a status
+reached by running out of findings.**
 
 (Was: DRAFT, BLOCKED on the format-epoch rung,
 `spec/CONTRACT_FORMAT_EPOCH_MAJOR1.md`, which at the time was ratified and in
@@ -79,12 +92,19 @@ pin 2a. This contract additionally **inherits three obligations** from that rung
 demonstration, and pin 3c's two suspended conformance assertions) — recorded in
 the same place.
 
-**It became dispatchable when the format rung landed, not before — and that has
+**Its dependency cleared when the format rung landed, not before — and that has
 now happened.** This is no longer bounded analysis. Pin 2a's original prohibition
 stands for the record: it was never amended into a disposition from inside this
 contract, and the resolution above came from outside, which is exactly what the
 prohibition required.
 
+> **Two senses of "dispatchable", disambiguated 2026-08-07 — this sentence
+> previously used the wrong one.** *Unblocked* means the dependency chain has
+> cleared: true since `bc06706`. *Dispatchable* means ratified and frozen and
+> therefore ready to execute: **false**, and see the status block. This rung is
+> **unblocked but not dispatchable**. Round 1 read the first as the second, which
+> is how it came to be ratified after a single round.
+
 **Rung type:** **capability + API change.** No wire bytes move and no schema
 major or minor changes — `BundleError` has no discriminant and no encoder
 (`bundle/src/error.rs`), so a new variant is a pure Rust API change. What does