S16: ratification round 2 -- the status block stops describing the review

Whole-artifact ratification review of 5ec2ce0 returned one blocking finding.

The live status block still said this contract "has not been through
adversarial review rounds." That was true when written and false from the
first independent pass onward, and it sat in the "what remains before
dispatch" summary -- so a top-down reader received a false review-state signal
before reaching any record that contradicts it.

Replaced with a non-rotating pointer: the review records below are the review
state; the block states no count and no ordinal, and will say RATIFIED when
that decision is taken. Also sharpened the neighbouring sentence to name three
distinct states -- unblocked, ratified, dispatchable -- since conflating the
first two is the specific failure it cites from S27.

This is the status-block defect S27 spent amendments 4 through 7 removing,
reproduced here in its purest form. S27 established that a status line
describing the review must not describe the review: it must point at the
record that owns it, because every such line goes stale exactly when the
review advances, which is the one moment nobody is reading the status block.

What makes this worse than a stale count: a stale count reads as an error,
while "has not been through adversarial review rounds" reads as a verdict on
the artifact's maturity. A reader deciding whether to trust this draft would
have taken it as the answer, with ten revisions of independent review recorded
immediately below it.

And it is the whole-artifact question again. Rounds against edits ask "is this
change right?"; only a whole-artifact read asks "is anything the document says
about itself still true?" Round 1 found a missing permanent test that way;
round 2 found a false status claim. Both were invisible to every incremental
pass, and neither was in the content those passes were correcting.

Swept for other live review-state claims: none. The only remaining
"NOT RATIFIED" is the status line itself, which is the fact that changes at
ratification, and the false sentence survives only inside its own correction.

Still DRAFT, still unratified. No implementation work has begun.

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

spec/CONTRACT_P13S16_PROJECTION.md

@@ -10,10 +10,23 @@ authority now defines the implementation's current reduction semantics
 `CanonicalBaseRequiresRebuild` on both the read and write paths.
 
 **What remains before dispatch is this contract's own ratification.** It is complete and
-ratifiable as a *plan* and has **not been through adversarial review rounds**.
+ratifiable as a *plan*.
-*Unblocked* and *dispatchable* are different states, and conflating them is how the S27
+
-contract came to be ratified after a single round and then have that ratification
+> **Which independent rounds have closed, and what each found, are the review records
-withdrawn — see its status block.
+> below. This block does not restate them, and states no count and no ordinal — a status
+> line that describes the review is a status line that goes stale every time the review
+> advances.** The **last record below is the review state**; ratification is the
+> repository owner's decision taken on that evidence, and this block will say
+> **RATIFIED** when it is taken.
+>
+> *(It read "has **not been through adversarial review rounds**" — true when written and
+> false from the first independent pass onward, while sitting in the summary a top-down
+> reader meets first. **Corrected in ratification round 2**, which found it as a live
+> false signal rather than as stale history.)*
+
+*Unblocked*, *ratified* and *dispatchable* are three different states, and conflating the
+first two is how the S27 contract came to be ratified after a single round and then have
+that ratification withdrawn — see its status block.
 
 **This rung's first act is bumping the authority to `1`** (**pin 12**), because it
 changes `CreateStaffGroup`'s reduction verdict. That bump is the discipline S27
@@ -305,6 +318,30 @@ question asked was always *"is this change right?"* — never *"is anything else
 shape?"* A first whole-artifact round asks the second question, which is the argument for
 running one before ratification rather than after.
 
+### RATIFICATION ROUND 2 — independent, whole-artifact, against `5ec2ce0`. One blocking finding.
+
+| # | Finding | Disposition |
+|---|---|---|
+| **1** | **The live status block still said this contract "has not been through adversarial review rounds"** — false from the first independent pass onward, and **sitting in the "what remains before dispatch" summary**, so a top-down reader received a false review-state signal before reaching any record that contradicts it | Replaced with a **non-rotating pointer**: the review records below are the review state, and the block states **no count and no ordinal** |
+
+**This is the status-block defect S27 spent four amendments removing, reproduced here in
+its purest form.** S27's amendments 4–7 established that a status line describing the
+review *must not describe the review* — it must point at the table that owns it, because
+**every such line goes stale exactly when the review advances**, which is the one moment
+nobody is reading the status block. The invariant S27 landed on is the model this
+correction follows.
+
+**What makes this one worse than the counts:** a stale count reads as an error; **"has
+not been through adversarial review rounds" reads as a *verdict on the artifact's
+maturity*.** A reader deciding whether to trust this draft would have taken it as the
+answer, with ten revisions of independent review recorded immediately below.
+
+**And it is the whole-artifact question again.** Rounds against edits ask *"is this
+change right?"*; only a whole-artifact read asks *"is anything the document says about
+itself still true?"* Round 1 found a missing test that way; round 2 found a false status
+claim. **Both were invisible to every incremental pass**, and neither was in the content
+those passes were correcting.
+
 **The pattern across revisions A–J is sharper than any individual finding: a correction
 propagates one hop and stops.** Rev A fixed pin 10a and left touch row 11; the sweep
 caught row 11 and stopped before §6's consumer; rev D found pin 10a's *decision* still