P13-S27 round 14: the permissive sentence read earlier than the restrictive one

Independent review against f579172. One finding, blocking, and a
contradiction round 13 created.

The comparison method still said equal images "complete the observation and
require nothing further". That was written in round 9, when byte equality
was the whole of M7, and was not swept when round 13 added the writer-check
control. The contract therefore simultaneously required the control and
licensed omitting it, with the permissive sentence sitting earlier and
reading as the summary. Equality is now necessary but not sufficient:
observation 1 of three, control still required. That paragraph now
specifies how to compare, never what suffices.

A second instance was found while amending, and round 14 reported none. The
"informative in both directions" note read "if every field matches, the
refusal is justified" -- the same sufficiency claim in different words,
still carrying round 8's "every field" vocabulary that round 9 had replaced
with whole-image comparison. A search for "nothing further" or "sufficient"
cannot reach a sentence that says "matches". That is the defect CLAUDE.md
names, searching one spelling and concluding about all sites, met inside the
fix for a sweep failure. Neither the reviewer's search nor my first search
found it; a third pass on different terms did.

The round-13 lesson generalises further than round 13 stated. It is not
only that a requirement must be swept to every site. It is that the
permissive statement usually reads earlier than the restrictive one, because
requirements accumulate downward as a document is amended, and a reader
following the document in order stops at the first sentence that says
"done". Where a later round narrows what suffices, the earlier summary is
the site most likely to contradict it and least likely to be searched.

Still NOT RATIFIED, NOT DISPATCHABLE. Findings 9, 6, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1,
3, 2, 1, 1. Blocking 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1. Fourteen
rounds, none clean, but the last two are single-finding rounds and round
14's was created by round 13 rather than pre-existing. Against that, round
13's question -- what else, besides the intended defect, would make this
pass? -- has still not been asked of M1 through M6, M5a or M5b, and round 14
did not ask it either. That scan remains outstanding and is the largest
known unexamined surface.

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

@@ -160,7 +160,8 @@ rows — read it off, do not restate it.
 | round 11 | 3 | 2 | **yes** |
 | round 12 | 2 | 2 | **yes** |
 | round 13 | 1 | 1 | **yes** |
-| **Total** | **47** | **34** | one amendment per row |
+| round 14 | 1 | 1 | **yes** |
+| **Total** | **48** | **35** | one amendment per row |
 
 **This block previously read "amended three times … fifteen findings so far,
 eight of them blocking"** — the round-2 figures, left standing through rounds 3
@@ -433,16 +434,41 @@ path, in the same run, under the same removals. **M7's removals are now explicit
 limited to the text refusals** — pin 3a is not among them and may not be weakened,
 because it is the thing under observation rather than an obstacle to it.
 
-**What round 14 should weigh, stated against interest:** findings by round are
+**Review round 14 — 2026-08-08, independent, against `f579172`.** **One finding,
-**9, 6, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1**; blocking **4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2,
+blocking** — a contradiction round 13 created.
-1, 2, 2, 1**. Thirteen rounds, **none clean**. Round 13 is the second single-finding
+
-round and the narrowest since the probe. **But it found a defect of a kind no
+| # | Finding | Disposition |
-earlier round had looked for** — not "can this run?" or "does this compare the
+|---|---|---|
-right things?" but **"could this pass for the wrong reason?"** — and that question
+| 1 | **The comparison method still said equal images "complete the observation and require nothing further"** — written in round 9 when byte equality *was* all of M7, and not swept when round 13 added the control. The contract simultaneously **required** the control and **licensed omitting it**, with the permissive sentence sitting **earlier**, reading as the summary | Equality is now **necessary but not sufficient** — observation 1 of three, with the control still required. The paragraph specifies *how to compare*, never *what suffices* |
-has **not** been asked of M1–M6, M5a or M5b. **Every mutation in §4 deserves the
+
-same check**: what else, besides the intended defect, would make it pass? **Treat
+**A second instance was found while amending, and round 14 reported none.** The
-"dispatchable" as a claim requiring evidence of convergence, not a status reached
+"informative in both directions" note read *"if **every field matches**, the
-by running out of findings.**
+refusal is justified"* — the **same sufficiency claim in different words**, and
+still carrying round 8's *"every field"* vocabulary that round 9 had replaced with
+whole-image comparison. **A search for "nothing further" or "sufficient" cannot
+reach a sentence that says "matches".** That is exactly the defect `CLAUDE.md`
+names — *searching one spelling and concluding about all sites* — encountered
+inside the fix for a sweep failure. **Neither the reviewer's search nor the
+author's first search found it; a third pass on different terms did.**
+
+**The round-13 lesson generalises further than round 13 stated.** It is not only
+that a requirement must be swept to every site — it is that **the permissive
+statement usually reads earlier than the restrictive one**, because requirements
+accumulate downward as a document is amended. **A reader following the document in
+order stops at the first sentence that says "done".** Where a later round narrows
+what suffices, the earlier summary is the site most likely to contradict it and
+least likely to be searched.
+
+**What round 15 should weigh, stated against interest:** findings by round are
+**9, 6, 6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 1, 1**; blocking identical but for round 1's
+tail — **…, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1**. Fourteen rounds, **none clean**, but the last two are
+single-finding rounds and **round 14's was created by round 13**, not pre-existing.
+That is the narrowest the defect stream has been. **Against it:** round 13's
+question — *what else, besides the intended defect, would make this pass?* — has
+still **not** been asked of M1–M6, M5a or M5b, and round 14 did not ask it either.
+**That scan remains outstanding and is the largest known unexamined surface.**
+**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
@@ -1737,8 +1763,19 @@ and round 9 each corrected one), which is why none is stated now.
 **The comparison method — whole artifacts, not a field list. CORRECTED IN ROUND
 9.**
 
-**Compare the complete `image()` bytes of both bundles.** If they are equal, the
+**Compare the complete `image()` bytes of both bundles.** Equality is
-observation is made and nothing further is required.
+**necessary but NOT sufficient** — it is observation 1 of three, and **the control
+must still run and reject the mismatched base.** See the observation requirements
+below; they are the authority on what M7 owes, and this paragraph specifies only
+*how to compare*, never *what suffices*.
+
+> **CORRECTED IN ROUND 14.** This read *"if they are equal, the observation is
+> made and nothing further is required"* — written in round 9, when byte equality
+> **was** the whole of M7. Round 13 added the writer-check control and did not
+> sweep back to this sentence, so the contract simultaneously **required** the
+> control and **licensed omitting it**, with the permissive sentence sitting
+> earlier and reading as the summary. **A reader following the document in order
+> would have stopped here.**
 
 > **Round 8 specified a field enumeration and got it wrong**, which is why this
 > is no longer a list. It claimed to cover "everything that could carry
@@ -1841,11 +1878,22 @@ unqualified "the text path is indistinguishable from the validated path" is
 forward.
 
 > **This mutation is informative in both directions, which is why it is worth
-> running.** If every field matches, the refusal is justified and the format
+> running.** If the images are equal **and the other two observations hold**, the
-> rung's reasoning is confirmed by observation for the first time. **If any field
+> refusal is justified and the format rung's reasoning is confirmed by
-> differs, that field is a provenance signal nobody knew existed** — the text
+> observation for the first time. **If the images differ, resolve the difference
-> refusal may be stronger than it needs to be, and that is a finding for a future
+> to a field**: it is either justified nondeterminism, or **a provenance signal
-> rung, not something to suppress because it contradicts the expected result.
+> nobody knew existed** — in which case the text refusal may be stronger than it
+> needs to be, and that is a finding for a future rung, not something to suppress
+> because it contradicts the expected result.
+>
+> **CORRECTED IN ROUND 14, as a second instance of that round's finding.** This
+> read *"if every field matches, the refusal is justified"* — the same sufficiency
+> claim as the sentence above, in different words, and still carrying round 8's
+> **"every field"** vocabulary that round 9 replaced with whole-image comparison.
+> **Round 14 reported no second instance, and there was one**: a search for
+> "nothing further" or "sufficient" could not reach a sentence that says
+> "matches" instead. **Same defect, different spelling** — the failure mode
+> `CLAUDE.md` names, met inside the fix for it.
 
 **Restore every refusal you removed by hand-editing back**, never with git —
 working from the enumeration the path requirement above demands, **not from a