Rank 6, the last docket item before the posture statements, and the throughput
frontier N-5 called "one ruling wide". The ruling landed. It closed the frontier
rather than opening it, and that is the correct outcome.
R-8 ruled C: committing to an entailment and correctly declining to commit are
DIFFERENT capabilities, licensed on DIFFERENT evidence, and may not be pooled.
THE FINDING: split, ZERO bands license — not four.
band unknown floor entailed floor
philosophy_theology_contrast 652 0.989925 8 0.000000
philosophy_theology_modal 652 0.989925 8 0.000000
physics_causal 653 0.989940 7 0.000000
systems_software_causal 653 0.989940 7 0.000000
(pooled, the old basis) 660 0.990046 -- clears by 0.000046
N-5 recorded that "four bands would earn SERVE the moment a ledger is sealed."
That is true on the POOLED basis and false on the ruled one. Those four cleared
theta_SERVE=0.99 only because 7-8 entailments were counted alongside 652-653
correct refusals to reach 660. The licence was manufactured by the pooling, not
earned by the evidence. conservative_floor(9,9) is 0.000000 — the Wilson lower
bound at nine trials is not merely below theta, it is zero.
This is exactly why the plan blocked PR-14 on R-8 instead of sealing first and
ruling after. A ledger sealed on the pooled basis would have granted four
licences that the mix rule then had to revoke — and revoking a granted licence
is the expensive direction, as PR-12 had just demonstrated across 21 deduction
bands in this same session.
DELEGATED RULING — R-8 C's entailed floor N: no new constant.
The packet recommended "C, with a floor from A applied to the entailed
capability only," and N was never named. It does not need naming. theta_SERVE
=0.99 through conservative_floor — the bar every other capability already meets,
657 distinct correct decisions — applied to each separated capability on its own
evidence licenses nothing, by a factor of 73. Inventing a second, weaker
constant for the capability that most needs the strong one would institutionalise
two standards, which is precisely the objection that sank option B. Recorded
under the standing delegation with its reasoning, so it can be overturned.
NO LEDGER IS SEALED, AND THAT IS THE DELIVERABLE. Under the rule there is
nothing to license, and the registered missing_ok=True absence already says so
once. An artifact whose only content is its own emptiness would be a second
statement of the same fact — the defect class registered as G-23 this same week.
THE USEFUL RESULT IS THE SHAPE OF THE GAP, WHICH POOLING HAD HIDDEN.
Non-commitment serving is FOUR TO FIVE distinct query atoms short per band.
Entailed serving is ~648 short. Those are content tasks of completely different
size, and a single pooled figure could not distinguish "almost there" from "two
orders of magnitude away". Four cases is a morning's work; 648 is a program.
Nobody could see that before the split.
Delivered:
- curriculum_serve_entailed registered in CAPABILITY_LEDGERS, missing_ok=True
(absent = nothing licensed, the honest state), with the rule declared in the
manifest table rather than at a call site (ADR-0263 rule 5)
- an audit source for it — demanded immediately by the manifest's own pin
(test_every_licensed_capability_has_an_audit_source went red the moment the
capability was declared, which is PR-5's declared-table discipline working)
- ADR-0264 §5 amendment recording the ruling and correcting §4.1's "four bands
would earn SERVE" expectation. Changes no decision in that ADR;
curriculum_serving_enabled stays False
- tests/test_curriculum_outcome_mix.py on the gate: both capabilities pinned,
the shortfall pinned exactly, AND the counterfactual pinned — pooling
licenses 4 — so the argument for the rule cannot drift away from the number
it rests on
The serving path needs no change, and that is stated rather than left implicit:
under the rule nothing is licensed, so there is no licensed-vs-disclosed branch
to route. Building that machinery now would be building for a case that cannot
occur yet.
Closes G-10.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wcw2pnMBwyvmNyQg4uPEt4
All current ADR links should target this directory as docs/adr/....
docs/decisions/... was the historical path and must not be used for new
references.
Runtime execution contracts live in docs/specs/runtime_contracts.md; ADRs
may cite that spec when a decision adds or changes a runtime invariant.
Master Blueprint ADR mapping (2026-07-20)
The Master Architectural Specification lists ADR-0240–0253 with titles that
collide by number with Accepted repository ADRs (especially 0246–0252).
epistemic-taxonomy-ownership-stage3.md
— binding ownership note (Master Blueprint Stage 3A, 2026-07-20): the three
orthogonal epistemic axes (EpistemicStatus / EpistemicState /
GeometricCoherenceVerdict) must not be collapsed into one enum.
